tihraty  of  t:he  t:heolo0ical  ^tminary 

PRINCETON  .  NEW  JERSEY 

FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
ROBERT  ELLIOTT  SPEER 


!»• 


//^ 


/ 


OUR 

MI5UNDE.RSTOOD 

BIBLE. 


The  ma.terial  for  this  book  <wa.s  prepared  by 
Dr*  Trumbull  before  his  deaih  in  1903,  but 
has  ne'ver  before  been  published  in  book  form* 


OUR 

MISUNDERSTOOD 

BIBLE 


COMMON   ERRORS 
ABOUT   BIBLE  TEXTS  AND  TRUTHS 


BY/ 

H.  Clay  Trumbull 

Author  of 

"How  to  Deal  with  Doubts  and  Doubters;" 

Prayer:   Its  Nature  and  Scope  ; "  "  Illustrative  Answers 

to  Prayer  ; "  "  Individual  Work  for 

Individuals,"  etc. 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  TIMES  COMPANY 
1907 


Copyright.  1907.  by 
The  Sunday  School  Times  Companyo 


PREFACE 

No  book  is,  in  its  more  important  truths,  easier 
to  understand  than  the  Bible.  Yet,  at  the  same 
time,  no  book  has  suffered  more  than  the  Bible 
from  being  misunderstood  at  important  points, 
as  well  as  in  other  particulars.  Some  of  these 
misunderstandings  are  easily  accounted  for,  and 
might  be  easily  removed;  others  are  not  easily 
accounted  for,  yet  have  prevailed,  without  being 
accounted  for,  from  generation  to  generation. 

There  are  many  difficulties  growing  out  of  the 
radical  differences  between  Oriental  and  Occi- 
dental methods  of  thought  and  speech,  and  cus- 
toms and  practises.  Even  such  terms  as  "  love  '* 
and  "  hate  "  can  hardly  be  comprehended  by  a 
Westerner,  as  an  Easterner  would  employ  them, 
and  on  such  a  difference  as  this  two  schools  of 
theology  might  array  themselves  in  determined 
and  persistent  opposition.  Again,  the  Oriental 
method  of  poetic  imagery  in  ordinary  speech  is 
well  nigh  incomprehensible  to  the  Occidental, 
accustomed  as  he  is  to  cling  to  the  letter  of  the 
text  that  killeth,  as  over  against  the  spirit  of  a 
figure  or  an  illustration  that  would  give  life. 

There  are  many  ideas  about  the  Bible  that 
generally  prevail,  without  their  having  any  basis 


ii  Preface 

in  the  Bible  itself.  These  erroneous  ideas  have 
even  a  stronger  hold  on  Bible  readers  generally 
than  the  Bible  text;  and  in  pulpit  and  in  pew 
they  are  taken  for  granted  as  if  they  had  some 
truth  in  them.  Thus  it  is  often  said,  without  any 
sufficient  thought  on  the  subject,  that  "  Law  pre- 
vails in  the  Old  Testament,"  and  that  **  Love  pre- 
vails in  the  New  Testament;"  and  again  that 
"  the  Holy  Spirit  strives  directly  with  the  sinner 
to  bring  him  to  repentance."  Again,  there  have 
been  wrong  uses  of  a  word,  through  mistransla- 
tion, or  through  a  misunderstanding  of  the  tech- 
nical or  the  popular  meaning  of  that  word  in 
former  times,  which  tend  to  mislead  the  reader. 
Such  is  the  term  **  be  converted,"  instead  of  the 
simple  term  "  turn."  The  Revisers  have  not 
been  able  to  change  all  the  ideas  that  had  grown 
out  of  the  error  of  their  predecessors,  by  show- 
ing as  they  have  that  *'  be  converted  "  is  not  a 
Bible  term  in  the  sense  that  it  was  long  sup- 
posed to  be.  Again  the  term  *'  cross-bearing  "  or 
"  bearing  the  cross  "  cannot  be  made  to  conform 
to  the  truth  without  considering  the  meaning  it 
had  in  New  Testament  times.  What  it  is  now 
generally  supposed  to  mean  is  very  far  from  its 
Bible  meaning. 

"  Perfection  "  and  "  sanctification  "  and  "  sacri- 
fice," and  other  Bible  words^  have  one  meaning 


Preface  iii 

as  they  appear  in  the  Bible,  and  a  very  different 
meaning  as  they  are  commonly  understood  in 
religious  conversation  or  controversy.  They 
often  have  a  very  good  meaning  even  as  popu- 
larly understood — or  misunderstood.  But  the 
Bible  meaning  is  really  the  best  one,  even  though 
another  meaning  may  be  commonly  preferred. 

Single  Bible  words,  like  *'  Mizpah,"  or 
"  Angel,"  or  "  Cherubim,"  or  ''  Amen,"  are  by 
many  readers  so  misunderstood  that  they  are  a 
means  of  misleading  than  of  rightly  guiding  those 
who  would  know  and  be  helped  by  the  truth. 

Having  found  the  gain  to  himself,  and  to  some 
others,  in  the  added  light  on  Bible  terms  and 
truths  by  these  explanations  and  corrections,  the 
writer  presents  the  statements  and  suggestions 
herewith,  hoping  that  they  may  help  still  others. 
Yet  none  of  the  views  here  expressed  are  to  be 
accepted  by  a  Bible  reader  unless  he  find  them 
to  be  conformable  to  Bible  teachings  on  his  more 
careful  study.  But  in  any  event  good  can  hardly 
fail  to  come  of  readers  being  stimulated  to  a 
closer  examination  of  the  grounds  for  believing 
or  of  questioning  as  to  the  ideas  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  connect  with  certain  Bible  words 
and  terms  and  truths. 

Certain  preliminary  statements  as  to  Bible 
teachings  in  general  are  given  as  precedent  to  a 


iv  Preface 

treatment  of  specific  texts  and  truths.  The  vaUie 
of  these  also  will  be  found  in  their  possible  sug- 
gestiveness  rather  than  in  any  dogmatic  value. 

H.  CivAY  TrumbulIv. 

Philadelphia. 


CONTLNT5 

I 
Bible  Words  Not  Always  a  Safe  Guide  —     .         .        9 

II 

Harming  Souls  by  Quoting  Scripture  -^       .         .       17 

III 
Understandest  Thou  What  Thou  Readest       .         .       23 

IV 
Principles  Rather  Than  Rules  in  the  Bible    .         .      30 

V 

Questions  of  Authorship  Not  Always  Important       .       40 

VI 

Ivove  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New        .      47 

VII 
In  His  Name,  Not  for  His  Sake  ...       65 

VIII 
The  Holy  Spirit's  Mission  To  and  Through  Believers     71 

IX 

Conversion  Man's  Responsibility  Not  God's    .         .       81 

X 

Needless  Worry  as  to  being  "Born  Again"      .         .       90 

XI 
Is  There  Any  Real  Gain  in  Salvation  .         .       94 


vi  Contents 

XII 
Not  a  Duty  To  work  Out  One's  Salvation     .         .     103 

XIII 
Sanctification,  Not  "Sanctification"         .         .         .     108 

XIV 
Purit>'  of  Heart  Not  a  State  of  Sinlessness        .         .     119 

XV 
Bible  Perfection  Not  Sinlessness      ....     125 

XVI 
Denying  Self,  Not  Denying  Things  to  Self      .        .     130 

XVII 
Bearing  the  Cross,  Not  Bearing  Crosses  .         .     137 

XVIII 
Sacrifice  as  a  Means  of  Personal  Enjoyment    .         .     145 

XIX 

Love  Not  a  Matter  of  Feeling         ....     155 

XX 

Whom  Does  God  Love? 164 

XXI 

Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed  .     169 

XXII 
Bible  Rest  Not  Inaction 210 

XXI 11 
Busy  Marthas  Never  Good  Housekeepers        .         .    217 


Contents  vii 

XXIV 

Clergj-men  Not  the  Chief  Preachers        .         .         .     226 

XXV 

Chastisement  Not  Punishment  ....     235 

XXVI 
Mizpah:  A  Barrier  Not  a  Bond         ....     241 

XXVII 
The  Inferiority  of  Angels 245 

XXVIII 
Cherubim  Utterly  Unlike  Angels    ....      252 

XXIX 

spirit,  Not  Soul,  Man's  Pre-eminence  .         .    260 

XXX 

What  Will  Satisfy  Us  When  We  Awake  ?       .         .268 

XXXI 
The  Resurrection  Not  a  Mere  Rising  Again  .     271 

XXXII 

"Amen,  and  Amen  " 280 

XXXIII 
Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth        .         .         .         .293 


1 

BIBLE  WORDS   NOT  ALWAYS 
A  5AFL  GUIDE 

If  one  were  seriously  to  ask  the  question, 
"Are  Bible  words  always  a  safe  guide  to  a 
reader?"  many  a  Bible  lover  would  reply 
promptly,  and  with  positiveness,  ''Of  course 
they  are,  and  I  am  surprised  to  hear  you  ask 
such  a  question."  Other  Bible  lovers,  quite  as 
intelligent  and  quite  as  reverent  as  those  with 
whom  they  differ,  might  say,  "It  depends  on 
whose  words  in  the  Bible  you  are  speaking  of 
as  'Bible  words,'  and  how  you  understand  those 
words.  God's  words  are  recorded  in  the  Bible; 
so  are  the  words  of  God's  servants  and  messen- 
gers and  prophets.  Some  of  Satan's  words 
are  recorded  in  the  Bible;  so  are  the  words  of 
Pharaoh  and  Jezebel,  and  others  of  God's  ene- 
mies. It  will  not  do  to  say  sweepingly  that  all 
of  the  Bible  words  are  a  safe  guide  to  all." 
Such  a  question  about  the  Bible,  and  the  whole 
subject  it  suggests,  are  worth  careful  consid- 
eration, in  order  that  we  may  realize  our  duty 
and  our  privileges. 

Even   when   we   are   sure   that   we   have   the 

9 


10  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

words  of  a  chosen  man  of  God,  we  may  not  be 
sure  that  we  read,  or  use  aright,  or  correctly 
understand,  those  words.  We  owe  it  to  God, 
and  we  owe  it  to  ourselves,  to  know  as  to  this. 
Here  is  an  illustration,  for  example,  of  Bible 
words  misused  in  order  to  mislead. 

A  mischievous  young  lad,  of  godly  parents, 
was  in  the  habit  of  being  away  from  home  much 
of  the  night,  often  not  going  to  bed  until  day- 
light, or  near  it.  His  excellent  grandmother, 
whose  husband  was  a  clergyman,  expostulated 
with  him,  saying  that  night  was  the  time  for 
sleep,  and  days  were  for  activity. 

''Why,  grandmother,"  said  the  mischievous 
youngster,  "the  Bible  teaches  us  quite  the  op- 
posite of  that  statement." 

"What  makes  you  say  that?"  asked  the  sur- 
prised  and   shocked   grandmother. 

At  this  the  lad  brought  his  grandmother  the 
words  of  Paul  to  verify  his  assertion,  and  he 
added  full  notes  (notes  of  his  writing,  not 
Paul's).  His  "text"  was  from  i  Thessalonians  5 : 
6-8 :  "  Let  us  not  sleep,  as  do  the  rest,  but  let 
us  watch  and  be  sober.  For  they  that  sleep 
sleep  in  the  night;  and  they  that  are  drunken 
are  drunken  in  the  night.  But  let  us,  since  we 
arc  of  the  day,  be  sober."  The  young  scapegrace 
said   that   in   these   teachings   drunkenness   and 


Bible  Words  Not  Always  a  Safe  Guide  1 1 

night-sleeping  were  classed  together  as  mis- 
doing, while  Christians  were  enjoined  to  watch 
in  the  night,  and  to  be  sober.  He  said  that  our 
world  began  in  the  better  way.  In  Eden  and 
in  the  beginning  of  earthly  time  "the  evening 
and  the  morning" — not  the  morning  and  the 
evening,  but  the  evening  and  the  morning — 
"were  the  first  day,"  and  so  on  day  after  day. 
The  sun  guarded  men  in  the  daytime  while  they 
slept,  and  they  could  guard  themselves  nights, 
when  they  were  about  their  business,  as  they 
ought  to  be.  But  in  these  later  and  more  cor- 
rupt days  many  now  slept  nights,  or  were 
drunken  nights. 

That  good  grandmother  was  not  convinced  by 
her  grandson's  use,  or  misuse,  of  Bible  words ; 
neither  was   she   encouraged  as   to   the  helpful 
Bible  study  of  that  graceless  youth.  But  he  repre- 
sented, in  his  misuse  of  the  Bible,  a  multitude  of 
those  who  fail  to  get  what  the  Bible  could  teach 
them,   and   others   through    them,     even    while 
they  are  becoming  acquainted  with  Bible  words. 
/      Indeed,  any  one  familiar  with  the  world's  best 
I  books,  whether  those  books  be  counted  sacred 
I  or   common,    knows,   or   ought   to    know,    that 
I  there  is  no  other  book  in  all  the  world  so  often 
?  and   so   shockingly   misquoted   as   is   the   Bible, 
if  That  statement  is  rather  hard  on  the  Bible — is 


12  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

it  not?  Yet  that  it  is  a  correct  statement  will 
be  testified  to  by  many  who  believe  that  the 
Bible  is  true,  even  while  they  often  quote  what 
is  not  true,  thinking  it  is  in  the  Bible. 

There  are  places  in  the  Bible  teachings,  or 
in  the  Bible  texts  and  words,  where  a  truth  is 
stated  in  two  seemingly  contradictory  ways,  when 
both  are  correct,  yet  where  the  truth  as  to  this 
is  not  shown  on  the  surface.  One  has  to  think 
and  to  study  before  he  can  explain  or  understand 
Bible  words.  And  it  is  well  that  this  is  so,  al- 
though the  reader  may  not  perceive  this  at  first. 

For  instance,  one  says  that  the  Bible  com- 
mand is: 

"  Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 
Lest  he  be  wise  in  his  own  conceit"  (Prov.  26:  5). 

And  the  one  who  would  follow  this  counsel  al- 
ways tries  to  talk  with  fools  in  this  way.  '^No," 
says  another,  "the  Bible  command  is, 

"  Answer  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 
Lest  thou  also  be  like  unto  him  "  (Prov.  26:  4). 

And  he  who  would  follow  this  instruction  does 
not  waste  his  time  matching  words  with  fools. 
As  to  the  words  in  the  Bible,  both  readers  are 
correct,  but  neither  Bible  text  is  a  positive  com- 
mand. It  is  the  reader's  duty  to  find  when  the 
proverb,  rather  than  a  command,  is  in  order,  and 
this  calls  for  study  and  a  measure  of  wisdom. 


Bible  Words  Not  Always  a  Safe  Guide  13 

So  in  many  another  case,  with  Bible  words  in 

the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New. 

"Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens"  (Gal.  6:  2). 
"Each  man  shall  bear  his  own  burden"  (Gal.  6:  5). 

No  book  in  the  world  is  so  safe  a  guide  for  any 
and  for  all  as  the  Bible ;  yet  it  is  not  enough  to 
know  the  mere  words  of  the  Bible,  if  we  would 
profit  by  this  Book  of  books.  It  demands  study, 
and  a  sincere,  prayerful  desire  to  learn  its  mean- 
ing. 

Blunders  are  often  made  through  supposing 
that  all  the  words  of  the  Bible  are  to  be  taken 
literally,  just  as  they  stand,  instead  of  being  taken 
for  what  they  evidently  mean,  in  the  light  of  their 
surroundings,  and  of  the  obvious  purpose  of 
their  writer,  and  of  the  known  spirit  and  teach- 
ings of  Him  who  gave  the  Bible  for  the  guidance 
of  his  children. 

If  a  man  says  that  it  is  wrong  to  go  into  a  grog- 
shop, or  a  saloon,  or  a  bar-room,  in  order  to  res- 
cue or  warn  one  whom  he  loves,  or  to  reform 
others  who  are  there,  and  whom  he  would  lead 
into  better  paths,  he  would  certainly  not  be  justi- 
fied in  this  view  by  quoting  the  Bible  words  when 
they  say: 

"  Be  not  among  winebibbers"  (Prov.  2Z\  20). 
Yet  these  words  as  they  stand  might  seem  to  be 
a  more  sweeping  condemnation  than  was  often 


14  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

made  of  poor  Mrs.  Nation  and  other  "reformers" 
who  spend  so  much  time  in  disobeying  the 
Bible, — if  the  Bible  words  are  to  be  taken  liter- 
ally. 

Most  of  us  have  heard,  from  childhood,  the 
statement  or  declaration,  as  if  from  the  Bible, 
''Spare  the  rod  and  spoil  the  child."  As  com- 
monly understood,  this  "text"  is  supposed  to 
mean,  or  to  teach,  that  a  loving  father  or  mother 
must  now  and  then  thrash  or  flog  a  boy  or  girl 
with  a  "rod"  or  a  switch  or  a  shingle  or  a  strap. 
How  many  little  creatures  have  sulTered  from 
the  application  of  that  "text,"  or  of  the  "rod" 
spoken  of  in  that  text !  And  how  many  mis- 
guided parents  have  tried  to  comfort  themselves, 
when  causing  their  children  to  suffer,  with  this 
idea,  perhaps  supposing  that  they  obeyed  God 
in  this  thing  even  if  they  never  tried  to  obey 
God  in  anything  else ! 

Yet  there  is  no  such  injunction,  or  proverb,  in 
the  Bible  as  "Spare  the  rod  and  spoil  the  child." 
Perhaps  the  proverb  that  is  as  likely  as  any  other 
to  have  been  perverted  into  an  encouragement  to 
misguided  parents  to  show  their  bad  temper  in 
this  way  is  this  : 

"  He  that  spareth  his  rod  hateth  his  son; 
But  he  that  loveth  him  chastcneth  him  betimes." 

(Prov.  13:  24.) 


Bible  Words  Not  Always  a  Safe  Guide  15 

But  this  does  not  justify  flogging  a  boy  or  a 
girl  merely  in  order  to  show  that  that  child  is  not 
hated.  One  meaning  for  the  Bible  word  trans- 
lated "rod"  is  "scepter ;"  it  stands  for  "authority," 
"rule,"  "government,"  "control."  A  parent  is  set 
of  God  to  represent  God  in  love  toward  his  chil- 
dren. In  this  spirit  a  parent  is  to  "chasten."  To 
"chasten"  is  to  train  or  to  "bring  up,"  not  neces- 
sarily to  flog  or  thrash. 

'  Other  Bible  texts  have  been  as  badly  abused 
and  misused  as  that  text.  Let  us  be  sure,  then, 
first,  that  a  quoted  "text"  is  in  the  Bible,  and 
then  that  it  means  what  it  says,  instead  of  some- 
thing very  different,  before  we  suppose  that  the 
Bible  teaches  what  we  infer  from  the  familiar 
words. 

In  saying  or  thinking  that  Bible  teachings,  or 
Bible  statements,  are  contradictory,  let  us  not  be 
surprised  that  this  can  be  so.  Many  of  the  les- 
sons of  experience  in  our  ordinary  life  course 
seem,  or  are,  contradictory.  Our  greatest  help 
often  comes  from  our  hindrances.  Perhaps  an 
obstacle  in  our  way  hinders  our  rapid  descent 
down  a  steep  hill,  and  thus  helps  us  to  safety  and 
a  fresh  foothold.  That  which  is  our  real  grief 
to-day  may  be  the  cause  of  great  gladness  by  and 
by.  Our  being  brought  lower  in  thought  and 
spirit  in  the  present  may  enable  us  to  rise  higher 


16  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

in  the  future.  Even  a  mere  athlete  stoops  low 
as  preparatory  to  his  jumping  high  or  to  his  leap- 
ing long.  Indeed,  there  is  hardly  anything  in  a 
man's  earthly  experience  that  does  not  incident- 
ally call  for,  or  cause,  the  opposite. 

Why,  then,  should  we  wonder  that  the  best 
gold  of  Bible  truths  does  not  lie  in  open  sight 
on  the  very  surface  ?  We  have  to  dig  as  for  hid 
treasure  if  we  would  get  that  which  we  should 
and  shall  value  most.  We  have  reason  therefore 
to  thank  God  that  his  Word  must  be  studied,  and 
its  meaning  found  out  and  pondered,  by  those 
who  would  have  its  full  benefits. 


II 


HARMING  50ULS   BY  QUOTING 
5CRIPTURL 

Not  only  Bible  words,  but  many  other  good 
things  in  use  in  daily  life  are  liable  to  be  mis- 
used, and  so  to  harm  instead  of  help.  That 
which  has  power  for  good,  if  well  used,  is  likely 
to  have  a  corresponding  power  for  evil  if  used 
unwisely.  Its  value  depends  on  the  skill  and  care 
displayed  in  its  handling.  A  sharp  carving  knife, 
which  in  the  hand  of  the  head  of  the  household 
may  be  a  means  of  providing  food  for  those  who 
sit  around  the  family  table,  may,  in  the  hand  of 
a  little  child  or  of  a  careless  user,  be  a  means  of 
harm  or  of  death  to  the  one  who  has  it  in  hand, 
or  to  those  who  are  near  him.  As  with  mate- 
rial instruments,  so  with  spiritual — their  helpful- 
ness or  harm  pivots  on  their  right  using  as  surely 
as  on  their  intrinsic  worth. 

Thus,  "the  word  of  God  is  living,  and  active, 
and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  and  pierc- 
ing even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of 
both  joints  and  marrow,  and  quick  to  discern  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  Yet  the  very 
writer  who  assures  us  of  this  great  truth,  speak- 


18  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ing  for  those  who  indite  inspired  Scripture,  and 
of  those  who  receive  the  message,  says,  as  to  the 
truth  concerning  Jesus  Christ:  "We  have  many 
things  to  say,  and  hard  of  interpretation,  seeing 
ye  are  become  dull  of  hearing.  For  when  by 
reason  of  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye 
have  need  again  that  some  one  teach  you  the 
rudiments  of  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
of  God;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of 
milk,  and  not  of  solid  food."  Hearers  who  are 
of  an  age  or  who  are  in  a  position  where  they 
**ought  to  be  teachers"  often  fail  to  perceive  the 
difference  between  truths  which  are  as  milk  for 
babes  and  those  which  are  as  solid  food  for  full- 
grown  men,  and  in  consequence  harm  others  by 
not  ''handling  aright  the  word  of  truth"  and 
giving  proper  -portions  for  their  nourishment  and 
upbuilding. 

Even  the  wisest  religious  teachers  may  be  a 
means  of  harming  souls  who  are  not  sufificiently 
considered  in  the  manner  and  matter  of  the  truth 
presented  to  them.  Peter  and  Paul  were  cer- 
tainly above  the  average  as  religious  teachers, 
specially  inspired  for  their  exalted  mission ;  but 
Peter  says  as  to  the  epistles  of  Paul  concerning 
Christ  and  his  salvation : '"Even  as  our  beloved 
brother  Paul  also,  according  to  the  wisdom  given 
to  him,  wrote  unto  you ;  as  also  in  all  his  epistles. 


Harming  Souls  by  Quoting  Scripture  19 

Speaking  in  them  of  these  things;  wherein  are 
some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  which  the 
ignorant  and  unstedfast  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the 
other  scriptures,  unto  their  own  destruction." 

What  we  call  "Holy  Scripture"  or  ''Holy 
Bible"  contains,  as  covering  the  pages  and  con- 
tents of  our  English  sBible,  words  of  truth  and 
words  of  falsehood.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  out- 
side opinion ;  it  is  so  declared  in  the  Holy  Bible 
itself,  and  it  is  to  be  recognized  as  the  declara- 
tion of  holy  men  who  gave  us  this  inestimable 
record.  It  is  distinctly  said  in  that  record  that 
certain  words  came  from  God,  and  that  certain 
other  words  came  from  Satan,  as  illustrated  in 
succeeding  pages ;  that  certain  words  were 
spoken  by  men  whom  God  approved  and  who 
spoke  for  God,  and  that  certain  other  words  were 
spoken  by  enemies  of  God,  whose  falsehoods  and 
whose  falsity  God  by  his  representatives  pointed 
out.  Who  will  dare  to  say,  for  one  minute,  that 
the  words  of  God  and  the  words  of  Satan  are 
of  equal  worth,  that  there  is  to  be  no  distinction 
between  the  declarations  of  evil  men  contrary  to 
the  principles  of  God's  law,  and  the  declarations 
of  men  who  spoke  for  God  on  the  basis  of  eternal 
principles  disclosed  by  him? 

Paul,  writing  to  Timothy  as  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  which  he  had  learned  from  his 


20  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

childhood,  says,  ''Every  scripture  inspired  of 
God,"  or,  as  many  read  it,  *'is  inspired  of  God,  is 
also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  cor- 
rection, for  instruction  which  is  in  righteousness." 
That  declaration  of  Paul's  is  true,  as  he  meant  it, 
and  as  he  meant  it  to  be  understood ;  but  as  it  is 
often  understood,  or  misunderstood,  and  is 
quoted,  or  misquoted,  it  is  not  true.  If  it  be 
understood  and  quoted,  as  it  often  is,  as  meaning 
that  every  written  word,  including  all  the  words 
of  a  certain  version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  are 
equally  true,  even  those  words  that  God  shows 
to  be  false,  then  that  utterance  of  Paul  is  misun- 
derstood, misquoted  and  misapplied,  and  souls 
are  harmed  or  imperiled  by  the  act.  And  so  of 
many  another  portion  of  Scripture. 

This  is  not  merely  a  possible  danger  as  to  the 
use  of  Scripture,  it  is  a  very  common  and  a  very 
practical  matter.  The  error  of  using  Scripture 
words  to  the  injury  of  precious  souls  by  misun- 
derstanding and  therefore  by  misusing  them,  is 
widespread  among  teachers  of  well-nigh  every 
grade.  It  is  to  be  noted  in  the  Sunday-school 
teacher's  chair,  in  the  superintendent's  desk,  at 
the  editor's  table,  in  the  clergyman's  pulpit,  in  the 
evangelist's  tent,  in  the  place  of  the  theological 
professor  or  the  ecclesiastical  delegate.  It  does 
not  even  seem  to  be  generally  guarded  against  by 


Harming  5ouls  by  Quoting  Scripture  21 

those  who  value  most  highly  Bible  words  as  their 
weapon  of  attack  and  defense. 

Many  a  man  quotes  from  the  book  of  Job  as 
if  its  words  were  all  true,  because  it  is  part  of 
the  Bible,  without  considering  whether  it  is  Job, 
or  Eliphaz,  or  Bildad,  or  Zophar,  or  Elihu,  or 
Satan,  or  God  himself,  who  is  the  speaker.  Simi- 
larly as  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes ;  often  no 
difference  seems  to  be  noted  between  its  passages 
of  truth  and  those  of  avowed  error.  Words  of 
the  idolatrous  Philistines  are  quoted  as  if  they 
were  the  words  of  a  prophet  of  Israel.  So  as  to 
such  texts  as  "An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for 
a  tooth ;"  ''Jehovah  watch  between  me  and  thee, 
when  we  are  absent  one  from  another ;"  *'We  all 
do  fade  as  a  leaf ;"  ''  Handle  not,  nor  taste,  nor 
touch  (all  which  things  are  to  perish  with  the 
using)."  "If  meat  causeth  my  brother  to  stumble, 
I  will  eat  no  flesh  for  evermore,  that  I  cause  not 
my  brother  to  stumble."  Such  texts  and  others 
have  been  so  often  misused  that  many  now  do 
not  have  any  idea  of  what  is  their  true  meaning. 
Every  week,  sermons  are  preached  from  texts 
misunderstood  or  misused  by  the  preacher;  and 
similarly  in  other  spheres.  Can  Scripture  be 
thus  perverted  without  harm  to  hearers? 

In  quoting  a  Bible  text,  the  first  thing  to  be 
considered  is  whether  it  is  declared  in  the  Bible 


22  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

as  true  or  as  false ;  and  the  next  thing  is  to  learn 
— not  what  it  says,  but — what  it  means.  This 
often  requires  close  study.  When  these  two 
points  are  clear  to  the  user's  mind,  it  is  time  to 
consider,  as  then  of  chief  importance,  whether  it 
is  intended  and  fitted  of  God  for  application  to 
those  to  whom  the  user  has  a  message  at  this  par- 
ticular time.  How  seldom  all  this  is  duly  consid- 
ered in  advance !  And  how  much  harm  is  done, 
or  risked,  in  consequence  ! 


Ill 


"UNDE,R5TANDL5T  THOU  WHAT 
THOU  RLADL5T?" 

It  is  one  thing  to  read  the  Bible ;  it  is  an- 
other thing  to  understand  the  Bible.  Even 
though  one  has  a  reverent  spirit,  and  a  sincere 
desire  to  know  the  truth,  as  he  reads  in  the  Book 
of  books,  it  does -not  follow  that  he  will  have  an 
understanding  of  that  which  he  reads.  Knowl- 
edge is  necessary  in  order  to  the  gaining  of 
knowledge.  Study  is  essential  to  the  acquire- 
ment of  the  results  of  study.  Guidance  from 
others  is  important,  if  we  would  be  gainers  from 
our  own  efforts  in  research.  It  is  not  enough  to 
go  to  the  Bible  for  instruction  in  that  of  which  it 
treats.  We  must  have  knowledge  outside  of  that 
which  the  Bible  supplies,  and  help  from  outside 
of  ourselves  as  earnest  seekers  after  truth,  if  we 
would  understand  what  we  read  and  profit  by 
our  reading. 

A  man  high  in  authority  in  the  court  of  Ethi- 
opia, and  presumably  of  more  than  ordinary  in- 
telligence, had  journeyed  from  his  country  to 
Jerusalem  in  order  to  worship  Jehovah,  the  God 

23 


24  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

of  gods  and  the  Lord  of  lords,  at  the  one  proper 
house  of  worship.  He  was  a  student  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  He  had  some  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  and  he  wanted  to  have  more.  After 
enjoying  the  advantages  of  a  visit  to  the  Holy 
City,  he  was  returning  homeward.  As  he  jour- 
neyed he  read  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.  Philip  the 
evangelist,  a  special  messenger  of  God,  guided 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  joined  the  Ethiopian  as  he 
rode  in  his  chariot,  and  his  first  question  to  him 
w  as : 

"  Understandest  thou  what  thou  readest  ?  '* 
(Acts  8:  30.) 

The  intelligent  and  modest  response  of  the 
Ethiopian  courtier  was: 

''  How  can  I,  except  some  one  shall  guide 
me?" 

And  he  there  sought  and  received  the  help  of 
Philip  in  his  Bible  reading. 

When  two  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  better 
trained  than  the  Ethiopian  chamberlain,  were 
wondering  that  their  Master  had  submitted  him- 
self to  death,  that  Master  joined  them,  as  they 
walked  in  anxious  thought,  and,  after  reproach- 
ing them  for  their  dulness  in  the  comprehension 
of  Bible  truth,  he  became  anew  their  teacher, 
"  and  beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the 
prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scrip- 


"  Understandest  Thou  What  Thou  Readest?"       25 

tures  the  things  concerning  himself."  (Luke 
24:  2.'].^  Then  for  the  first  time  they  under- 
stood what  they  had  often  read  in  the  Bible  with- 
out understanding. 

In  the  days  of  Jesus  it  was,  as  it  is  now,  im- 
portant, not  merely  to  know  the  words  of  the 
Bible,  but  to  understand  what  was  meant  by 
those  words  as  used  by  Bible  writers,  and  as  in- 
tended to  be  understood  by  Bible  readers.  Such 
understanding  calls  for  knowledge  and  study,  as 
well  as  spiritual  guidance. 

Bible  words  do  not  always  mean  just  what 
they  say,  although  Bible  words  always  mean  just 
what  they  mean.  In  reading  Bible  words  it  is, 
therefore,  important  for  us  to  know  just  what 
those  words  mean,  as  well  as  just  what  those 
words  say.  When  Jesus  says,  "  The  words  that 
I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit,  and  are  life," 
(John  6:  63)  we  know  that  he  means  just  what 
he  means,  while  he  does  not  mean  just  what  he 
says.  His  "  words  "  are  not  themselves  "  spirit  " 
or  '*  life,"  although  they  be  made  the  means  of 
both  spirit  and  life.  So,  again,  when  Jesus  says 
concerning  his  betrayer,  "  Good  were  it  for  that 
man  if  he  had  not  been  born"  (Mark  14:  21),  we 
have  no  doubt  as  to  what  he  means,  but  we  do 
not  claim  that  the  utterance  as  it  stands  is  liter- 
ally true.     Of  course  it  could  not  really  be  good 


26  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

for  a  man,  unless  there  was  a  man  for  it  to  be 
good  for. 

Not  all  that  is  in  the  Bible  is  written  because  it 
is  the  truth.  There  are  lies  recorded  there  as 
lies,  intended  to  be  understood  as  lies ;  yet  many 
a  time  one  of  these  lies  is  quoted  as  if  it  were 
the  truth.  A  gentleman  once  said  to  the  writer, 
in  support  of  the  idea  that  nothing  is  so  precious 
to  a  man  as  his  life : 

"All  that  a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life." 
(Job  2:  4.) 

''  Where  did  you  get  that  idea  ? "  said  the 
writer. 

"  From  the  Bible,"  was  the  answer. 

"Who  said  it?" 

"  Really  I  don't  remember." 

"  Well,  it  was  Satan  who  said  it.  It  was  a  lie 
then,  and  it  is  a  lie  now.  The  Lord  proved  it 
was  a  He;  and  here  you  are  quoting  that  old  lie 
of  Satan  as  if  it  were  the  truth,  just  because  the 
words  as  you  quote  them  are  in  the  Bible." 

Yet  that  gentleman  was  not  an  ignoramus.  He 
was  one  of  the  original  International  Lesson 
Committee,  an  exceptionally  intelligent  and  care- 
ful Bible  student.  He  simply  illustrated  in  his 
course  the  liability  there  is  of  being  deceived,  or 
of  being  a  means  of  deceiving  others,  by  taking 
it  for  granted  that  all  the  words  of  the  Bible  are 


"  Understandest  Thou  What  Thou  Readest?"       27 

in  themselves  true,  or  are  to  be  taken  as  meaning 
just  what  they  say,  or  seem  to  say. 

While  the  Bible  is  from  God,  it  was  written  by 
men  in  human  language ;  and  men  are  dependent 
on  their  knowledge  of  human  language  for  their 
knowledge  of  the  truths  which  God  would  teach 
them  through  the  Bible.  Originally  written  in 
Hebrew,  Chaldaic,  and  Greek,  the  Bible  had  to 
be  translated  into  the  vernacular  of  modern  men 
in  order  to  be  understood  by  modern  men.  Every 
man  needs  help  in  the  simplest  reading  of  the 
Bible  in  his  own  language.  As  a  child  he  has  to 
be  taught  the  meaning  of  Bible  words  in  his  ver- 
nacular; and  in  his  maturity  he  needs  fresh  light 
on  the  significance  and  force  of  Bible  terms  that 
he'  has  but  partially  apprehended  hitherto.  A 
man  who  called  on  Mr.  Moody  in  his  study  was 
surprised  to  find  some  open  volumes  of  commen- 
taries on  his  table. 

'*  What,  Brother  Moody,  do  you  use  com- 
mentaries?" he  asked. 

"  Of  course  I  do,  "  said  Moody. 

"  Well,  I  sha'n't  enjoy  your  preaching  so  much, 
now.  I  thought  you  preached  right  from  the 
Bible. " 

"  Did  you  ever  like  my  sermons  ?  " 

"  Indeed  I  did.  " 

"  Then  you  liked  Moody's  commentaries." 


28  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Mr.  Moody  was  shrewd  enough  to  point  out 
in  this  way  that  that  hearer  was  helped  to  an 
understanding  of  what  he  read  in  the  Bible  by 
Mr.  Moody,  as  every  one  must  be  helped  by 
somebody  in  order  to  get  the  most  and  the  best 
from  the  Bible. 

At  the  best,  human  language  is  imperfect  and 
liable  to  various  interpretations  and  consequent 
ambiguity  and  misunderstandings.  Moreover, 
words  are  figurative  rather  than  exact  and  defini- 
tive, and  it  is  necessary  to  get  at  the  truth  by 
the  living  suggestions  in  language,  instead  of 
taking  that  language  as  finally  conclusive  in  its 
dead  literalness.  This  difficulty  in  the  use  of 
Bible  language  is  increased,  or  intensified,  by  the 
fact  that  the  Bible  was  primarily  written  by 
Easterns  for  Easterns ;  and  that  Easterns,  by 
their  very  nature,  are  prone  to  speak  in  figures 
of  speech  as  an  appeal  to  the  imagination.  Yet 
all  human  language  is,  in  a  sense,  figurative,  and 
this  fact  must  be  borne  in  mind  by  one  who  would 
understand  the  meaning  of  words  as  he  reads 
them. 

A  scoffer  was  finding  fault  with  Bible  language 
because  of  its  ambiguity,  and  claiming  that  relig- 
ious truth,  like  scientific  truth,  should  be  stated  in 
exact  terms  that  could  never  be  misunderstood. 
Terms  for  color  and  shape,  he  said,  could  not 


"  Understandest  Thou  What  Thou  Readest  ? "       29 

have  two  or  more  meanings,  and  would  be  the 
same  in  the  same  language  in  all  the  passing 
centuries.     His   Christian   opponent  responded: 

*'  How  would  that  be  in  a  case  like  this :  '  A 
blackberry  is  red  when  it  is  green.'  Is  there  no 
ambiguity  in  the  use  of  the  terms  for  color 
there  ? " 

Wherever  human  language  is  employed  for  the 
expression  of  truth,  scientific,  poetic,  or  religious, 
there  are  possibilities  of  misunderstanding  by  in- 
telligent hearers  or  readers,  and  these  must  be 
recognized  and  guarded  against. 

"  Understandest  thou  what  thou  readest  ?  "  is 
a  question  that  comes  home  with  force  to  every 
one  who  looks  to  the  Bible  for  instruction  and 
guidance ;  and  the  more  intelligent  the  student  of 
the  Bible  is,  the  more  inclined  he  is  to  say,  "  How 
can  I,  except  some  one  shall  guide  me  ?  " 


IV 


PRINCIPLL5  RATHLR  THAN  RULL5 
IN  THE  BIBLE 

//  A  chief  value  of  the  Bible  as  a  guide  of  human 
conduct  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  is  a  book  of 
vital  principles,  instead  of  being  a  book  of  rigid 
rules ;  that  it  indicates  in  its  precepts  the  spirit 
that  should  influence  us  in  all  our  actions,  instead 
of  declaring  to  us  in  specific  injunctions  the 
application  of  those  principles  in  every  imagin- 
able case^;:  Yet  it  is  just  at  this  point  that  the 
Bible  is  misunderstood  by  many,  and  that  many 
are  perplexed  by  what  seems  to  them  a  lack  of 
explicitness  in  the  divinely  inspired  teachings  of 
the  Bible. 

/:^en  go  to  the  Bible  for  rules  of  conduct,  when 
they  ought  to  go  there  for  principles  to  guide 
them  in  framing  rules.  They  find  there  a  state- 
ment which  is  in  the  form  of  a  rule,  and  they 
accept  it  as  unqualifiedly  binding  on  themselves 
and  others  for  all  time,  when  a  closer  study  of 
its  meanings  would  show  that  it  was  intended  not 
as  an  invariable  rule,  but  as  an  incidental  illus- 
tration of  a  principle  that  is  of  unvarying  appli- 
cation to  all  persons  and  all  times,   fin  this  way 


Principles  Rather  than  Rules  in  the  Bible  31 

men  are  often  misled  by  the  letter  of  the  Bible 
text,  and  fail  to  perceive  the  life-giving  spirit  of 
that  text.  ] 

In  theyOld  Testament  it  is  written :  "  Thou 
shalt  love  Jehovah  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might ;  " 
and  again:  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself. "  In  the  New  Testament  these  com- 
mandments are  repeated  in  the  same  form ;  and 
Jesus  says  of  them :  "  On  these  two  command- 
ments the  whole  law  hangeth,  and  the  prophets." 
Yet  these  commandments  are  of  small  account  as 
mere  rules  of  conduct,  while  they  are  "exceed- 
ing broad "  as  principles  to  guide  all  conduct. 
They  do  not  tell  us  what  to  do  to  show  that  we 
love  God,  or  that  we  love  our  neighbor.  They 
do  give  us  a  principle  by  which  we  can  shape  our 
actions  towards  God  and  towards  man.  We  must, 
however,  first  know  what  love  is,  and  then  we 
must  learn  by  study  and  thought  what  is  required 
as  an  exhibit  of  love. 

He  who  really  wants  to  know  and  to  do  just 
what  is  right  in  any  given  case,  has  the  respon- 
sibility laid  upon  him  of  finding  out  for  himself 
how  the  principle  of  these  commandments  bears 
upon  that  case,  and  then  of  acting  accordingly. 
But  if  a  man  is  puzzled  to  know  whether  love 
requires  him  to  take  the  right  hand  or  the  left 


32  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

when  he  meets  a  fellow-man  on  a  narrow  cross- 
ing in  a  muddy  street,  he  will  find  no  specific 
declaration  on  the  subject  in  the  pages  of  the 
entire  Bible.  The  principles  enunciated  in  the 
Bible  ought  to  enable  a  man  to  see  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  conform  to  the  well-defined  current  prac- 
tise in  such  a  matter  and  to  concede  to  his 
fellow-man  that  portion  of  the  pathway  which 
custom  or  law  declares  to  be  his  fellow-man's. 
But  unless  a  man  is  willing  to  study  out  from 
Bible  principles  a  rule  that  should  guide  him  in 
the  case,  he  must  be  so  far  without  a  rule  that 
has  the  Bible  sanction.  And  thus  it  is  in  all  the 
range  of  human  duty;  the  Bible  enunciates  the 
principle  that  ought  in  every  case  to  be  a  man's 
standard  of  action,  while  it  does  not  purpose  to 
supply  a  man  with  a  specific  rule  for  every  partic- 
ular case  before  him  for  decision. 

Although  this  is  unmistakably  the  truth  con- 
cerning the  Bible,  it  is  by  no  means  generally 
recognized  as  the  truth ;  and  because  of  the  mis- 
conceptions of  the  purpose  and  methods  of  the 
Bible  so  far,  men  are  constantly  misleading  them- 
selves in  courses  of  conduct  through  their  con- 
viction that  the  Bible  does  or  does  not  specifically 
pass  upon  those  courses  of  conduct  for  all  time 
and  for  every  person.  They  perceive,  for  example, 
that  a  certain  course  of  conduct  seems,  at  the 


Principles  Rather  than  Rules  in  the  Bible  33 

present  time,  to  tend  to  the  injury  of  the  one 
who  pursues  it,  and  of  others  who  are  aifected  by 
its  influence.  This  causes  them  to  ask  whether 
or  not  the  course  be  a  sinful  one.  Going  to  the 
Bible  with  an  idea  that  that  is  a  book  of  specific 
rules  of  conduct,  instead  of  a  book  of  principles 
from  which  rules  of  conduct  are  to  be  deduced, 
they  look  for  some  explicit  forbidding  of  the 
course  in  question,  and,  not  finding  that  there, 
they  decide  that  the  conduct  itself  cannot  prop- 
erly be  counted  sinful.  Their  mistake  is  not  as 
to  what  is  in  the  Bible,  but  as  to  what  the  Bible 
is.  They  suppose  the  Bible  to  be  a  book  of  rules, 
when  it  really  is  a  book  of  principles  illustrated 
by  historic  applications  of  principles  to  particu- 
lar cases. 

A  gentleman  once  challenged  the  writer  to 
point  to  a  single  Bible  text  that  forbade  hirnian 
slavery,  or  if  he  could  not  do  so  to  admit  that 
human  slavery  was  in  conformity  with  Bible 
teachings.     Thus  challenged,  the  writer  replied : 

"  I  frankly  confess  that  I  cannot  point  to  any 
Bible  text  which,  taken  as  it  stands  in  the  obvious 
meaning  attached  to  it  by  its  writer,  specifically 
forbids  slavery,  polygamy,  or  wine  drinking.  At 
the  same  time,  I  cannot  point  to  any  single  Bible 
text  which  specifically  commands  any  one  of  these 
practises.     Therefore,  as  at  present  advised,  and 


34  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

in  the  light  of  gospel  principles  as  I  understand 
them,  and  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  Christian 
discretion,  I  shall  have  but  one  wife,  no  negro, 
and  drink  cold  water.  " 

There  was  the  argument  in  a  nutshell  as  to  the 
view  of  Bible  texts  as  expressive  of  principles,  or 
of  rules.  One  man  looked  to  the  Bible  as  a  mere 
book  of  rules ;  the  other  looked  to- it  as  a  thesau- 
rus of  principles,  from  which  rules  were  to  be 
deduced  for  the  guidance  of  conduct  from  time 
to  time. 

It  is  true  that  the  New  Testament  (Col.  3: 
22)  says  explicitly :  ''  Servants  [the  Greek  is 
bond-servant  or  slave]  obey  in  all  things  them 
that  are  your  masters,  according  to  the  flesh," 
and  that  slaves  were  exhorted  to  be  in  subjection 
to  their  own  masters.  But  that  was  simply  the 
enunciation  of  a  principle  which  is  to  guide  all 
Christians  in  their  relations  to  those  having 
authority  over  them.  It  is  not  a  rule  which  en- 
joins the  practise  of  human  slavery  at  all  times. 
It  is  true  that  a  proverb  in  use  in  Solomon's  day 
says :  "  Look  not  thou  upon  the  wine  when  it  is 
red,"  but  that  is  no  more  binding  as  an  invariable 
rule  for  all  men  everywhere,  than  the  other 
proverb :  "  Go  to  the  ant,  thou  sluggard."  It 
does  not  mean  it  is  safe  to  drink  wine  with  your 
eyes  shut.     It  docs  mean  that  if  vou  want  to  be 


Principles  Rather  than  Rules  in  the  Bible  35 

dear  of  danger  from  wine,  you  will  do  well  to  let 
it  alone,  without  even  looking  towards  it  in  its 
attractiveness.  It  is  true  that  office  bearers  in  the 
church  were  required  to  have  only  one  wife ;  but 
that  does  not  mean  that  laymen  holding  no  offi- 
cial position  were  to  have  more  than  one  wife. 
The  principle  enunciated  in  that  command  was 
that  in  a  polygamous  community  no  man  who 
indulged  in  polgyamy  was  to  be  chosen  for  an 
office  in  the  Christian  church. 

An  eminent  and  highly  honored  bishop  of  the 
Church  of  England  said,  in  an  address  on  the 
subject  of  betting  and  gambling,  in  the  presence 
of  the  clergy  of  his  diocese :  ''  There  is  no  sin 
in  racing  or  betting,  any  more  than  there  is  sin  in 
drinking;  excessive  betting  is  sin,  just  as  exces- 
sive drinking  is  sin."  Then,  as  showing  how  he 
arrived  at  this  conclusion,  he  added :  *'  If  a  man 
says,  '  I  will  bet  you  £5  that  it  will  not  rain  to- 
morrow, '  I  think  it  would  take  a  long  time  to 
prove  from  the  Bible  that  that  man  was  guilty  of 
a  sin.  "  The  trouble  with  the  learned  bishop  in 
this  case  was  not  so  much  in  his  view  of  betting 
as  in  his  view  of  the  Bible.  He  seemed  to  sup- 
pose that  unless  a  perilous  practise  is  specifically 
condemned  in  the  Bible,  it  cannot  be  reckoned 
a  sinful  practise ;  whereas  the  principles  enunci- 
ated in  the  Bible  are  sufficiently  comprehensive 


36  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

and  clear  to  prove  that  it  may  be  sinful  for  us  to 
indulge  in  a  perilous  practise  which  is  not  in  itself 
a  sin. 

The  Bible  does  not  declare  cabbage-eating  to 
be  a  sin ;  but  if,  during  a  season  of  cholera,  or  at 
any  other  time,  a  man's  physician  should  tell  him 
that  for  him  to  eat  cabbage  would  be  sheer  sui- 
cide, does  it  need  any  proof-text  from  the  Bible 
to  show  that  cabbage-eating  by  that  man  would 
be  sinful  ?  The  Bible  would  exhibit  to  that  man 
the  principle  by  which  his  conduct  should  be 
guided,  but  it  would  give  him  no  explicit  rule  as 
to  cabbage-eating.  Even  if  he  were  to  find  in  the 
Bible  narrative  that  patriarchs,  prophets,  and 
apostles  had  eaten  cabbage  freely,  that  fact  would 
not  make  it  any  the  less  sinful  for  him  to  eat 
cabbage  in  the  face  of  its  probable  consequences 
to  him  and  to  his.  And  it  matters  not  whether 
the  illustration  be  taken  from  the  cabbage- 
garden,  the  orchard,  or  the  vineyard. 

If,  indeed,  the  Bible  is  properly  reckoned  as 
a  book  in  which  are  to  be  found  explicit  rules  of 
conduct  in  every  emergency,  it  would  seem  to  be 
strangely  incomplete  in  its  categories  of  good  and 
evil  performances.  What  Bible  texts  explicitly 
forbid  the  counterfeiting  of  government  money, 
the  forging  of  another's  name,  the  cutting  of 
public  telegraph  wires,  the  distilling  of  wh'sky 


Principles  Rather  than  Rules  in  the  Bible  37 

without  a  permit  from  the  authorities,  the 
"  watering  "  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  company 
which  one  controls  or  of  the  milk  which  one 
offers  for  sale  ?  There  is  a  great  deal  of  down- 
right rascality  current  in  the  community  at  the 
present  day  which  can  be  shown  to  be  immoral 
and  sinful  by  a  reference  to  the  principles  enunci- 
ated in  the  Bible,  but  which  is  not  declared  to  be 
a  sin  by  any  specific  rule  of  the  Bible  text.  And 
this  is  because  the  Bible  is  a  book  of  principles 
instead  of  a  book  of  rules. 

A  denomination  of  Christians  which  is  very 
rigid  in  its  practises,  and  very  literal  in  its  inter- 
pretation of  Bible  texts,  was  called  on  at  one  of 
its  formal  conferences  to  declare  whether  bicycle 
riding  was  allowable  for  its  members.  Turning 
to  the  Bible,  with  the  belief  that  a  specific  rule 
must  be  found  applicable  for  every  such  case  it 
actually  gave  utterance  to  the  decision  that  bicycle 
riding  was  improper  for  Christian  believers,  be- 
cause of  its  undoubted  popularity ;  "  for  that 
which  is  highly  esteemed  among  men  is  an 
abomination  in  the  sight  of  God." 

It  is  true  that  the  ancient  Levitical  law  included 
a  great  number  of  specific  rules  of  conduct,  as 
illustrative  of  the  application  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  the  Bible  to  everyday  life  in  all  its  de- 
tails ;  but  those  rules  were  for  a  single  people  and 


38  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

for  a  limited  period,  and  their  purpose  was  rather 
to  show  how  Bible  principles  might  apply  to  all 
human  practise,  than  to  indicate  the  only  lines  of 
human  practise  in  which  Bible  principles  were  to 
find  their  application. 

There  is  a  decided  unwillingness  in  the  popular 
mind,  and  indeed  in  many  a  professional  mind, 
to  accept  this  view  of  the  Bible  as  the  correct 
view;  for  it  would  be  so  much  easier  to  learn 
one's  duty  without  the  study  of  principles  than 
it  is  to  study  in  order  to  this  learning,  that  it 
seems  to  the  average  man  that  if  the  Bible  is 
good  for  anything  as  a  guide  of  conduct,  it  must 
be  as  a  book  of  rules  rather  than  as  a  book  of 
principles.  What  a  relief  it  would  be  to  most 
minds  to  have  a  Bible  that  would  tell  a  man 
specifically  just  what  is  right,  and  just  what  is 
wrong,  in  every  imaginable  crisis  of  affairs ;  just 
what  he  may  do,  and  just  what  he  must  not  do, 
in  every  sphere  of  human  conduct  ! 

If  only  the  Bible  were  thus  divinely  arranged, 
and  a  full  index  of  subjects  were  added  to  it,  how 
simple  would  be  the  matter  of  learning  one's  duty 
in  life  !  Any  one  could  turn  to  the  topics  in  the 
Bible  index  and  learn  for  himself  the  right  or 
wrong  of  a  mooted  question.  "  Backgammon,  " 
•'  Betting,  "  "  Bicycles,  "  "  Billiards,  "^  "  Cards,  " 
"  Church  Fairs,  "  "  Cider,  "  "  Civil  Service  Re- 


Principles  Rather  than  Rules  in  the  Bible  39 

form,"  "Dancing,"  'Tree  Trade,"  "Gam- 
bling," "  Golf,"  "  Grab  Bags,"  "  Horse  Racing," 
and  so  on  all  the  way  down  to  "  Operas,"  "  Pool 
Rooms,  "  "  Prohibition,  "  "  Theater-going,  " 
"  Unfermented  Wine, "  and  "  Woman's  Suf- 
frage. "  A  mere  child  could  find  the  references 
when  the  index  showed  the  page  of  the  rule  in 
the  premises.  This  would  seem  to  the  average 
mind,  such  a  gain  over  the  tedious  process  of 
hunting  out  the  Bible  principle  involved,  and 
then  studying  over  its  application  to  the  case  in 
question  !  There  is  a  difference  in  these  two 
ways ;  but  the  one  way  is  that  which  man  would 
prefer,  while  the  other  is  that  which  God  sees 
to  be  best. 


QUESTIONS  OF  AUTHORSHIP  NOT 
ALWAYS  IMPORTANT 

Who  wrote  a  document  is  sometimes  deemed 
all-important  in  considering  its  value ;  and  again 
it  is  not  so  deemed.  If  it  is  a  promissory  note, 
the  personality  of  the  signer  is  counted  the  chief 
thing  in  an  estimate  of  its  pecuniary  worth.  If 
it  is  a  last  will  and  testament,  it  pivots  entirely 
on  the  authenticity  of  the  signature.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  one  reads  on  a  public  guide- 
post  a  direction  to  a  village  or  city  which  he 
desires  to  reach,  he  is  more  interested  in  the 
direction  than  in  the  question  of  its  authorship. 
If  he  is  a  sensible  man,  he  usually  takes  it  for 
granted  that  the  guide-post  was  set  up  by  some 
one  who  knew  the  road,  and  who  desired  to  help 
seekers  of  that  place,  and  the  traveler  is  likely  to 
keep  on  his  course,  nothing  doubting. 

Yet  there  have  been  misplaced  guide-posts  and 
deceived  travelers.  It  is  possible  that  this  guide- 
post  was  erected  in  ignorance,  or  with  a  desire 
to  mislead  and  deceive,  and  that  he  who  follows 
its  directions  will  go  astray.  If  one  stops  to 
think,  he  has  to  consider  these  truths ;  and  of 

40 


Questions  of  Authorship  Not  Always  Important     41 

those  who  do  think,  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
persons  out  of  every  one  thousand  cannot  have 
positive  evidence  of  the  authority  and  knowledge 
and  right  purpose  of  the  original  writer  of  the 
time-worn  guide-post  which  has  led  successive 
generations  of  travelers  on  their  way.  They 
must  take  it  for  granted  that  those  who  went 
before  them,  following  the  directions  on  the 
guide-post  as  it  stands,  were  on  the  right  track, 
and  can  be  imitated  prudently. 

If  a  man  who  was  crossing  a  desert  plain,  and 
thirsted  for  water,  were  to  come  to  a  finger-post 
pointing  to  a  tempting  hollow  just  beyond  the 
ordinary  pathway,  with  the  words,  *'  To  an  ever- 
flowing  spring,  "  what  would  be  thought  of  that 
man  if  he  were  to  fail  to  turn  towards  that  spot, 
because  he  did  not  know  who  wrote  those  direc- 
tions, and  he  was  unwilling  to  follow  an  unknown 
guide  ?  Suppose,  further,  that  that  man  had 
been  told  by  different  travelers  over  that  same 
road  that  they  had  turned  to  that  spring  and 
been  refreshed,  and  that,  although  they  were  not 
sure  who  wrote  it  originally,  they  could  testify 
to  the  accuracy  of  the  direction, — suppose  that 
that  man  still  refused  to  turn  to  the  spring  be- 
cause of  the  lack  of  evidence  of  authorship,  and 
famished  at  the  foot  of  the  finger-post,  waiting 
for  further  evidence  !     Would  not  the  universal 


42  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

verdict  be  that  his  foolish  questioning  had  been 
his  deserved  destruction  ? 

Is  there  nothing  of  this  sort  in  the  sphere 
of  intellectual  or  of  spiritual  life  ?  Are  we  sure 
of  the  hand  that  inscribed  all  the  directions  on 
the  guide-posts  along  the  way  of  life  in  the 
books  of  Holy  Scripture?  Or  is  a  knowledge 
of  that  hand  comparable  in  importance  with 
the  directions  found  there?  Would  it  not  be 
folly  to  refuse  to  heed  those  directions  which 
have  guided  generation  after  generation  of 
seekers  of  the  way  and  the  water  of  life,  be- 
cause there  is  fair  question  as  to  the  hand  that 
first  inscribed  those   directions? 

Many  Bible  scholars  spend  much  precious 
time  in  discussing  questions  as  to  the  propor- 
tion of  the  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
actually  written  by  Moses,  or  of  the  number 
of  Psalms  written  by  David.  And  yet,  as  show- 
ing that  these  questions  are  not  of  chief  im- 
portance, the  most  positive  of  such  scholars  do 
not  claim  to  know  who  was  the  author  of  such 
books  as  Judges,  and  Kings,  and  Chronicles, 
and  Ruth,  and  Esther,  and  Job,  and  Daniel, 
even  while  they  admit  the  importance  of  the 
truths  recorded  in  those  books. 

No  book  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  is  of 
more  importance  and  value,  as  bearing  on  the 


Questions  of  Authorship  Not  Always  Important        43 

coming  of  the  Messiah  as  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  than  the  book  of  Malachi.  Yet  just 
who  wrote  the  book  of  Malachi  neither  Jewish 
nor  Christian  scholars  have  claimed  to  know. 
All  that  we  can  be  confident  of  is  that  the  name 
of  its  writer  was  not  "Alalachi."  "Malachi  "  rep- 
resents the  writer's  office  or  mission,  but  not 
his  name.  Yet  of  what  supreme  importance  to 
the  race  have  been  the  directions  on  the  Mala- 
chi guide-post,  pointing  out  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  as  the  world's  Saviour.  Would  it  not 
indeed  be  folly  to  refuse  to  heed  the  pointing 
of  that  spiritual  finger-post  because  its  inscriber 
is  not  known,  while  the  verity  of  its  inscription 
has  been  proved  by  the  test  of  two  thousand 
years  ? 

Take  again,  for  instance,  a  single  illustration 
of  methods  in  New  Testament  criticism.  Do  not 
some  thirsty,  groping  travelers  hesitate  to  follow 
the  directions  given  in  what  is  commonly  known 
as  the  Fourth  Gospel,  because  they  are  not 
entirely  certain  as  to  its  original  authorship,  and 
are  unwilling  to  follow  an  unknown  guide  ?  There 
is  more  spiritual  help  proffered  in  that  one  book 
than  in  any  other  of  the  Bible,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation.  All  that  is  in  the  other  books  of  the 
Bible  has  added  light  thrown  on  it  through  the 
words  of  that  one  book.    More  persons  testify  to 


44  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

the  surpassing  help  given  to  those  who  follow 
these  teachings  than  do  as  to  any  other  portion 
of  the  Bible.  Yet  there  are  those  who  actually 
famish  for  spiritual  refreshing,  and  who  grope 
in  spiritual  darkness,  because  they  are  not  quite 
sure  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  and  are 
unwilling  to  receive  the  Water  of  Life,  and  to 
walk  in  the  Light  of  Life,  until  they  have  more 
evidence  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  book.  Is 
not  this  strange  ? 

An  exceptionally  intelligent  student  who  had 
come  to  accept  the  general  views  of  Darwin  and 
Huxley  and  Spencer,  and  who  called  himself  an 
agnostic,  was  familiar  with  the  strongest  writ- 
ings of  those  of  that  school.  But  one  day  he 
thought  he  would  look  fairly  at  what  was  called 
the  strongest  presentation  of  the  Christian  side 
of  truth,  and  he  took  up  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
read  it  through  from  beginning  to  end.  He  sim- 
ply took  it  as  a  book,  aside  from  any  outside 
evidence  as  to  its  authenticity.  When  he  had 
read  it  through,  he  said  to  himself : 

**  The  One  of  whom  that  story  tells  either  is 
the  Saviour  of  the  world  or  ought  to  be." 

Because  of  what  that  book  told  him  of  that 
Person,  he  was  ready  to  heed  the  call  of  that 
Person  when  he  said  : 

"  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and 


Questions  of  Authorship  Not  Always  Important      45 

drink,  "  and  again,  ''  I  am  the  light  of  the  world : 
he  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  the  dark- 
ness, but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.  " 

Because  of  thus  reading  that  book,  instead  of 
waiting  for  outside  evidence  of  its  authorship, 
that  true  scholar  is  a  follower  of  the  Light  of  the 
World,  pointing  others  to  the  finger-post  that 
indicates  the  direction  out  of  the  shadow  into  the 
sun. 

That  is  the  way  it  has  been  with  many  a  trained 
scholar  and  honest  inquirer.  Similarly  it  is  with 
those  of  humbler  and  more  simple  minds.  When 
Bishop  Patteson  began  his  work  among  the  sav- 
ages of  the  islands  of  Melanesia,  he  wasted  no 
time  in  teaching  the  early  history  of  the  human 
race,  and  the  progress  and  development  of  relig- 
ious doctrine.  He  began  at  once  with  the  simple 
yet  profound  teachings  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  it 
stands  in  our  Bibles,  and  his  success  evidenced 
the  correctness  of  his  method. 

For  eighteen  centuries  the  children  of  men  and 
the  children  of  God  who  have  followed  the  point- 
ing of  that  spiritual  finger-post,  have  walked  in 
the  unfading  light,  and  have  been  refreshed  at 
the  Fountain  that  satisfies  all  thirst.  None  who 
would  consent  to  be  thus  guided  have  ever  been 
led  astray.  The  spiritual  history  of  our  race  has 
been  shaped  by  the  teachings  of  that  book  as  by 


46  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

no  other  book,  human  or  divine.  Why  should 
any  hesitate  or  doubt  because  of  subordinate 
questions  of  authorship,  when  the  internal  evi- 
dence of  truth  in  the  book  is  so  strong,  and  so 
many  generations  have  followed  safely  the  way 
it  points  out  ? 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  poor  doubters  who 
famish  at  the  foot  of  the  spiritual  finger-post, 
straining  their  weak  eyes  to  discover  whether 
there  be  not  some  reason  to  believe  that  certain 
letters  of  the  inscription  show  a  later  date  or 
another  artist  than  the  alleged  author  of  the  direc- 
tion ?  ''  Lord,  open  their  eyes,  that  they  may 
see. " 


VI 


LOVE  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 
LAW  IN  THE  NEW 

"  Law  is  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Love  is  the  religion  of  the  New.  "  That  is  a 
popular  idea,  among  Christians,  as  to  the  Bible 
and  its  teachings.  The  idea  is  proclaimed  in  this 
form  of  statement  in  pulpit  and  in  press  so  fre- 
quently, if  not  so  generally,  that  very  many  accept 
it  as  not  to  be  questioned  or  qualified.  Yet  it 
might,  with  equal  fairness  and  propriety,  be 
asserted  that  *'  Love  is  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  Law  is  the  rehgion  of  the  New.  " 
Both  statements  are  true  in  a  sense  :  neither  state- 
ment is  complete  by  itself,  or  as- ordinarily  under- 
stood. In  God's  government,  and  in  God's  revela- 
tion of  himself,  love  is  in  all  his  law,  and  all  his 
law  is  in  love.  Whoever  fails  to  recognize  this 
truth,  fails  to  understand  the  Bible  as  a  revelation 
of  God,  in  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 

If,  indeed,  it  could  be  shown  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  not  consistent  with  the  Old,  and  that  it 
presents  God  as  of  a  diflferent  spirit  from  that  in 
which  he  is  revealed  in  the  earlier  disclosures  of 
himself  to  man,  it  would  be  necessary  to  accept 

47 


48  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

one  of  these  Testaments  as  true,  and  to  reject  the 
other  as  not  true.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  not  a  manifestation  of  God  as  God 
was  from  the  beginning,  then  either  God  or  Jesus 
Christ  would  have  to  be  accepted  as  the  object  of 
worship  and  of  confidence,  as  the  other  could  not 
be ;  for  "  God  is  not  a  God  of  confusion,  but  of 
peace,  " — or  of  unity.  If  the  claims  of  Chris- 
tianity be  urged  as  those  of  a  new  religion,  with 
no  place  in  the  world's  history  prior  to  twenty 
centuries  ago,  they  bear  no  comparison  with  the 
claims  of  Christianity  as  the  flower  and  fruit  of 
Judaism,  rooted  in  the  love  of  God  to  man,  as 
shown  in  law  and  promise  and  guard  and  guid- 
ance in  all  the  centuries  told  of,  from  Adam  to 
Abraham,  from  Abraham  to  Judas  Maccabeus, 
and  again  from  John  the  Baptist  to  John  the 
Apocalyptist. 

That  love  is  only,  or  primarily,  or  mainly,  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  contrast  with  the  Old,  is 
a  comparatively  modern  error,  widespread 
though  it  be  to-day.  It  did  not  come  from  a 
careful  study  of  the  teachings,  nor  from  an 
apprehension  of  the  spirit,  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  was  not  taught  by  Jesus  or  his  apostles.  It  is 
not  a  declaration  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was 
not  presented  as  the  view  of  the  early  Christian 
teachers.     St.  Augustine,  for  instance,  distinctly 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New         49 

affirmed  the  opposite.  He  said,  "If  .  .  .  all 
divine  Scripture,  which  was  written  aforetime  [in 
the  Old  Testament],  was  written  with  a  view  of 
presignifying  the  Lord's  advent ;  and  if  whatever 
has  been  committed  to  writing  in  times  subsequent 
to  these,  and  established  by  divine  authority  [in 
the  New  Testament],  is  a  record  of  Christ,  and 
admonishes  us  of  love,  it  is  manifest  that  on  those 
two  commandments  of  love  to  God  and  love  to 
man  hang  not  only  all  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
which  at  the  time  when  the  Lord  spoke  to  that 
effect  were  as  yet  the  only  Holy  Scripture,  but 
also  all  those  books  of  the  divine  literature  which 
have  been  written  at  a  later  period  for  our  health, 
and  consigned  to  remembrance.  Wherefore,  in 
the  Old  Testament  there  is  a  veiling  of  the  New, 
and  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  a  revealing 
of  the  Old.  "  Love  is  in  law,  and  there  is  law  in 
love.  Or,  as  Browning  phrases  it,  by  the  lips 
of  David  as  foreseeing  the  greater  Son  of  David : 

"  I  report,  as  a  man  may  of  God's  work, — all's  love, 
yet  all's  law." 

When  God  manifested  himself  to  his  people 
Israel  at  Sinai,  with  lightnings  and  thunderings 
and  the  voice  of  a  trumpet  and  the  smoking  of 
the  mountain,  and  when  the  people  were 
affrighted,  and  stood  afar  ofif,  Moses  bade  them 
fear  not,  for  God  had  come,  not  for  their  punish- 


50  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ment,  but  for  their  good.  At  that  time  God  made 
a  covenant  of  love  with  his  people,  and  the  Ten 
Words  of  that  loving  covenant,  not  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments of  an  arbitrary  law  as  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  consider  them,  were  written  on  two 
stone  tablets,  to  be  kept  in  a  casket,  or  the  **  Ark 
of  the  Covenant,  "  as  a  permanent  memorial. 
That  the  Israelites  understood  love  to  be  at  the 
basis  of  this  law,  or  this  covenant,  was  shown  in 
the  fact  that  when  the  law  was  rewritten,  or 
repeated,  in  Deuteronomy,  the  sum  of  the  law 
was  given  in  this  form : 

*'  Hear,  O  Israel :  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Je- 
hovah :  and  thou  shalt  love  Jehovah  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all 
thy  might.  And  these  words,  which  I  command 
thee  this  day,  shall  be  upon  thy  heart :  and  thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children,  and 
shalt  talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy 
house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and 
when  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up. 
And  thou  shalt  bind  them  for  a  sign  upon  thy 
hand,  and  they  shall  be  for  frontlets  between 
thine  eyes.  And  thou  shalt  write  them  upon  the 
door-posts  of  thy  house,  and  upon  thy  gates  " 
(Deut.  6:  4-9). 

This  summarv  or  substance  of  the  Covenant  of 
Love  between  God  and  his  people  was  inscribed 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New         51 

on  the  ''  mezuzah  "  attached  to  the  door  frame  of 
every  pious  Jew's  home,  as  it  was  also  written  in 
the  phylacteries  bound  on  the  forehead  and  on 
the  hand  of  the  stricter  Jew.  As  it  was  in  more 
ancient  times,  so  it  was  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  and 
so  it  is  to-day.  It  was  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
Levitical  law  that  it  was  also  commanded,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thy  heart,"  "  but 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  "  (Lev. 
19:  17,  18).  And  that  both  an  enemy  and  a 
stranger  were  to  be  included  in  the  scope  of 
neighborly  love  was  shown  by  the  Mosaic  injunc- 
tions, **  One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home- 
born,  and  unto  the  stranger  that  sojourneth 
among  you"  (Exod.  12:  49);  "The  stranger 
that  sojourneth  with  you  shall  be  unto  you  as  the 
homeborn  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him 
as  thyself;  for  ye  were  sojourners  in  the  land  of 
Egypt"  (Lev.  19:  34);  "If  thou  meet  thine 
enemy's  ox  or  his  ass  going  astray,  thou  shalt 
surely  bring  it  back  to  him  again"  (Exod.  23: 
4,  5).     It  is  in  the  Proverbs  of  old  that  we  read, 

"  If  thine  enemy  be  hungry,  give  him  bread  to  eat; 
And  if  he  be  thirsty,  give  him  water  to  drink: 
For  thou  wilt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head. 
And  Jehovah  will  reward  thee  " 

(Prov.  25:  21,  22). 

These  teachings  are  not  first  found  in  the  Ser- 


52  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

mon  on  the  Mount,  or  in  the  other  words  of 
Jesus,  or  of  his  disciples,  but  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Is  there  not  love  in  the  religion  which 
enjoins  them?  When  Jesus  declared  that  an- 
other religion  than  his  was  taught  by  "them  of 
old  time,"  he  did  not  refer  to  the  writers  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  to  the  popular  commenta- 
tors of  a  later  time — who  had  perverted  the 
meaning  of  the  love-filled  law. 

When  Jesus  asked  a  questioning  Jewish 
teacher  of  the  law  what  he  understood  to  be  the 
main  requirements  of  the  law,  the  teacher 
promptly  replied,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind." 
(Luke  lo:  27.)  Jesus  then  said  unto  him, 
"  Thou  hast  answered  right :  this  do,  and  thou 
shalt  live."  On  another  occasion  Jesus  himself 
cited  as  correct  the  Old  Testament  teaching  of 
God's  requirement,  in  answer  to  a  Jewish  scribe's 
question  as  to  what  was  duty.  This  scribe, 
speaking  as  one  well  instructed  in  the  truths  of 
the  Old  Testament,  replied,  '*  Of  a  truth, 
Teacher,  thou  hast  well  said  that  he  is  one ;  and 
there  is  none  other  but  he ;  and  to  love  him  with 
all  the  heart,  and  with  all  the  understanding,  and 
with  all  the  strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbor  as 
himself,  is  much  more  than  all  whole  burnt  offer- 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New         53 

ings  and  sacrifices"  (Mark  12:  32,  33).  The 
comment  of  Jesus  on  that  answer  was,  '*  Thou 
art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God."  Jesus 
saw  love  in  the  Old  Testament ;  so  did  that  Jew- 
ish scribe. 

It  is  true  that  there  was  progress  in  the  dis- 
closure of  God's  love  according  as  man  was 
capable  of  comprehending  its  fulness,  its  ten- 
derness, and  its  limitless  scope ;  but  in  the  ear- 
liest ages  man  was  shown  that  God  was  actuated 
by  love  for  him  in  all  his  dealings  with  him.  As 
soon  as  man  felt  his  need  of  forgiveness  and 
salvation,  God  promised  to  open  a  way  of  restor- 
ation for  him  (Gen.  3:  15).  Just  because  Abra- 
ham was  willing  to  trust  God  utterly,  God  called 
him  his  "  friend,"  and  treated  him  accordingly 
(Gen.  12:  1-4;  15:  1-6;  18:  17-19;  2  Chron. 
20:  7).  This  was  long  before  the  day  of  Moses 
at  Sinai.  Afterward  God  told  Israel  tenderly 
of  his  love  for  that  people :  "  Jehovah  did  not 
set  his  love  upon  you,  nor  choose  you,  because 
ye  were  more  in  number  than  any  people ;  for  ye 
were  the  fewest  of  all  peoples  ;  but  because  Jeho- 
vah loveth  you.  .  .  .  And  he  will  love 
thee  "  (Deut.  7:  7,  8,  13).  God's  love  for  man 
was  not  because  of  man's  lovableness,  but  be- 
cause of  God's  lovingness.  Love,  and  mercy, 
and  compassion,  and  tenderness,  are  in  the  dif- 


54  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ferent  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  Genesis 
to  Malachi. 

The  Psalms  are  tremulous  with  these  feelings : 

"  For  my  father  and  my  mother  have  forsaken  me, 
But  Jehovah  will  take  me  up"     (Psa  27:  10). 

"Oh  how  great  is  thy  goodness,  which  thou  hast  laid 
up  for  them  that  fear  thee, 
Which  thou  hast  wrought  for  them  that  take  refuge 
in  thee,  before  the  sons  of  men!" 

(Psa.  31:  19.) 
"  O  God,  thou  art  my  God ;  earnestly  will  I  seek  thee : 
My  soul  thirsteth  for  thee,  my  flesh  longeth  for  thee, 
In  a  dry  and  weary  land,  where  no  water  is.     .     .     . 
Because  thy  lovingkindness  is  better  than  life; 
My  lips  shall  praise  thee"  (Psa.  63:  i,  3). 
"Jehovah  is  merciful  and  gracious, 
Slow  to  anger,  and  abundant  in  lovingkindness.    .    .    . 
He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our  sins. 
Nor  rewarded  us  after  our  iniquities.     .    .    . 
As  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west, 
So  far  hath  he  removed  our  transgressions  from  us. 
Like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  children, 
So  Jehovah  pitieth  them  that  fear  him"   (Psa.   103: 
8,  10,  12,  13). 

"Oh   that  men  would   praise  Jehovah  for  his   loving- 
kindness, 
And  for  his  wonderful  works  to  the  children  of  men!" 
(Psa.  107:  15.) 

"  Oh  give  thanks  unto  Jehovah ;  for  he  is  good : 
For  his  lovingkindness  endureth  for  ever  " 

(Psa.  118:  i). 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New         55 

Isaiah,  whose  prophecies  are  the  gospel  of  the 
Old  Testament,  repeats  and  carries  on  this 
strain :  ''  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  .  .  .  Fear 
not,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee;  I  have  called 
thee  by  thy  name,  thou  art  mine.  When  thou 
passest  through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with  thee ; 
and  through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  overflow 
thee :  when  thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou 
shalt  not  be  burned,  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle 
upon  thee.  For  I  am  Jehovah  thy  God,  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour  "  (Isa.  43 :  1-3). 
'*  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child,  that 
she  should  not  have  compassion  on  the  son  of 
her  womb  ?  Yea,  these  may  forget,  yet  will  not 
I  forget  thee"  (Isa.  49:  15).  **  As  one  whom 
his  mother  comforteth,  so  will  I  comfort  you  " 
(Isa.  66:  13).  Not  to  sons  of  Abraham,  or  to 
children  of  Israel,  alone,  is  God  thus  a  loving  and 
tender  Father,  in  the  thought  of  the  Evangelical 
Prophet.  ''  For  thou  art  our  Father,  though 
Abraham  knoweth  us  not,  and  Israel  doth  not 
acknowledge  us:  thou,  O  Jehovah,  art  our 
Father;  our  Redeemer  from  everlasting  is  thy 
name  "  (Isa.  63:  16). 

Thus  with  the  later  prophets  also.  How  God 
pleads  in  tireless  love  with  his  disobedient  chil- 
dren !  "  Wilt  thou  not  from  this  time  cry  unto 
me,  My  Father,  thou  art  the  guide  of  my  youth  ?" 


56  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

(Jer.  3:4).  "I  have  loved  thee  with  an  ever- 
lasting love :  therefore  with  lovingkindness  have 
I  drawn  thee"  (Jer.  31:  3).  '' Ye  my  sheep, 
the  sheep  of  my  pasture,  are  men,  and  I  am  your 
God,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah"  (Ezek.  34:  31). 
**  I  will  say  to  them  which  were  not  my  people, 
Thou  art  my  people;  and  they  shall  say,  Thou 
art  my  God  "  (Hos.  2  :  23).  "  Jehovah  thy  God 
is  in  the  midst  of  thee,  a  mighty  one  who  will 
save;  he  will  rejoice  over  thee  with  joy:  he  will 
rest  in  his  love;  he  will  joy  over  thee  with  sing- 
ing" (Zeph.  3:  17).  *' He  that  toucheth  you 
toucheth  the  apple  of  his  eye  "  (Zech.  2:8).  **  I 
have  loved  you,  saith  Jehovah.  Yet  ye  say, 
Wherein  hast  thou  loved  us?"  (Mai.  i:  2). 
"  Have  we  not  all  one  father?  Hath  not  one  God 
created  us?"  (Mai.  2:  10).  "Then  they  that 
feared  the  Lord  spake  one  with  another;  and 
the  Lord  hearkened,  and  heard,  and  a  book  of 
remembrance  was  written  before  him,  for  them 
that  feared  the  Lord,  and  that  thought  upon  his 
name.  And  they  shall  be  mine,  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  in  the  day  that  I  do  make,  even  a  pecu- 
liar treasure ;  and  I  will  spare  them,  as  a  man 
spareth  his  own  son  that  serveth  him"  (Mai.  3: 
16,  17). 

Who  shall  say  that  in  the  Old  Testament  love 
is  not  more  prominent  than  law?     Of  course, 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New         57 

there  is  law,  and  the  exhibit  of  the  consequences 
of  its  violation,  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  again 
in  the  New ;  but  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  the 
New,  there  is  shown  love  as  back  of  all  law,  as 
evidenced  in  all  law,  and  as  promising  redemp- 
tion from  the  consequences  of  law  violated  by 
unloving  man. 

On  the  other  hand,  does  not  the  law  show  itself 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  binding  in  love  on  all 
of  God's  children  ?  It  is  so  emphasized  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  so  taught  by  his  followers  from  Mat- 
thew to  Paul.  What  more  emphatic  expres- 
sion of  the  obligations  of  the  law  is  found  in  all 
the  Old  Testament  than  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
in  what  is  called  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount," — 
not  of  Mt.  Sinai,  but  of  the  mountain  of  Galilee : 
**  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  or 
the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  ful- 
fil. For  verily  I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and 
earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no 
wise  pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be 
accompHshed.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break 
one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall 
teach  men  so,  shall  be  called  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and 
teach  them,  he  shall  be  called  great  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  except 
your  righteousness  shall  .exceed  the  righteous- 


58  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no 
wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  (Matt. 
5:  17-20).  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me^ 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father 
who  is  in  heaven"  (Matt.  7:  21).  Again 
Jesus  said :  **  The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit 
on  Moses'  seat:  all  things  therefore  whatsoever 
they  bid  you,  these  do  and  observe ;  but  do  not 
ye  after  their  works ;  for  they  say,  and  do  not  " 
(Matt.  23:2,  3). 

It  is  Jesus  who  foretells  the  future  punish- 
ment of  evil-doers,  the  violators  of  God's  laws 
and  commandments.  There  are  no  such  pic- 
tures of  future  judgment  and  of  hell  for  the 
disobedient,  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  Jesus  gives 
in  the  New.  "  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth 
his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  king- 
dom all  things  that  cause  stumbling,  and  them 
that  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them  into  the 
furnace  of  fire :  there  shall  be  the  weeping  and 
the  gnashing  of  teeth"  (Matt.  13:  41,  42). 
"  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory, 
and  all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory :  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  the  nations :  and  he  shall  separate 
them  one  from  another,  as  the  shepherd  sepa- 
rateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats ;  and  he  shall  set 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New        59 

the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the 
left.  .  .  .  Then  shall  he  say  .  .  .  unto  them 
on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed, 
into  the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels.  .  .  .  Inasmuch  as  ye 
did  it  not  unto  one  of  these  least,  ye  did  it  not 
unto  me.  And  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal 
punishment"  (Matt.  25:  31-46).  "That  serv- 
ant, who  knew  his  lord's  will,  and  made  not 
ready,  nor  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be 
beaten  with  many  stripes ;  but  he  that  knew  not, 
and  did  things  Avorthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten 
with  few  stripes"  (Luke  12:  47). 

This  is  taught  not  only  in  the  earlier  words 
of  Jesus,  but  in  his  later  words  also;  not  alone 
to  the  Jewish  multitudes,  but  to  the  inner  circle 
of  his  disciple  friends.  It  was  on  the  night  of 
his  betrayal  that  he  said  to  those  dearest  to  him, 
**If  ye  love  me,  ye  will  keep  my  commandments." 
"  He  that  hath  my  commandments,  and  keepeth 
them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me."  "  If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  word  [my  commandments]  : 
and  my  Father  will  love  him.  .  .  .  He  that 
loveth  me  not  keepeth  not  my  words :  and  the 
word  [the  commandment]  which  ye  hear  is  not 
mine,  but  the  Father's  who  sent  me  "  (John  14 : 
15,  21,  2^,  24).  And  again,  "If  ye  keep  my 
commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love;  even 


60  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments,  and 
abide  in  his  love."  "  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye 
do  the  things  which  I  command  you  "  (John  15 : 
10,  14).  Here  is  law  as  well  as  love;  love  shown 
in  the  giving  and  in  the  keeping  of  law. 

The  disciples  of  Jesus  gave  prominence  to  the 
observance  of  law  as  the  proof  of  love,  as  the 
evidence  of  faith.  Paul,  who  extolled  faith  as 
a  means  of  salvation,  by  no  means  ignored  or 
undervalued  the  demands  of  law.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  says,  "  Do  we  then  make  the  law  of 
none  effect  through  faith  ?  God  forbid :  nay, 
we  establish  the  law  "  (Rom.  3:  31).  He  speaks, 
moreover,  of  the  "day  of  wrath  and  revelation 
of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God ;  who  will  ren- 
der to  every  man  according  to  his  works :  .  .  . 
unto  them  that  .  .  .  obey  not  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness,  shall  be  wrath  and  indig- 
nation, tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul 
of  man  that  worketh  evil,  of  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  of  the  Greek;  but  glory  and  honor  and 
peace  to  every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the 
Jews  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek ;  for  there  is  no 
respect  of  persons  with  God"  (Rom.  2:  5-11). 

Again  he  says :  "  We  must  all  be  made  mani- 
fest before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  that 
each  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body, 
according  to  what  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New        61 

good  or  bad.  Knowing  therefore  the  fear  of 
the  Lord,  we  persuade  men  "  (2  Cor.  5:  10,  11). 
"At  the  revelation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  from 
heaven  with  the  angels  of  his  power  in  flaming 
fire,  rendering  vengeance  to  them  that  know 
not  God,  and  to  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel 
of  our  Lord  Jesus :  who  shall  suffer  punishment, 
even  eternal  destruction  from  the  face  of  the 
Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  might,  when  he 
shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be 
marveled  at  in  all  them  that  believed  ...  in 
that  day"  (2  Thess.  i :  7-10). 

James  says :  "  Faith  apart  from  works  is  bar- 
ren ; "  "  Ye  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified, 
and  not  only  by  faith.  .  .  .  For  as  the  body 
apart  from  the  spirit  is  dead,  even  so  faith  apart 
from  works  is  dead  "  (Jas.  2  :  20,  24,  26).  Peter 
says :  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the 
godly  out  of  temptation,  and  to  keep  the  unright- 
eous under  punishment  unto  the  day  of  judg- 
ment "  (2  Pet.  2:9).  John,  the  apostle  of  love, 
says :  "  Hereby  know  we  that  we  know  him,  if 
we  keep  his  commandments.  He  that  saith,  I 
know  him,  and  keepeth  not  his  commandments, 
is  a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  him  "  ( i  John  2 : 
3,  4).  "He  that  doeth  righteousness  is  right- 
eous, even  as  he  [God]  is  righteous;  he  that 
doeth  sin  is  of  the  devil"   (i    John    3:    7,    8). 


62  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

**  This  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  com- 
mandments :  and  his  commandments  are  not 
grievous"  (i  John  5:3).  ''This  is  love,  that 
we  should  walk  after  his  commandments.  This 
is  the  commandment,  even  as  ye  heard  from  the 
beginning,  that  ye  should  walk  in  it  "  (2  John  6). 
It  is  in  John's  book  of  Revelation  that  we  re- 
peatedly find  the  figure  of  the  lake  of  fire  burn- 
ing with  brimstone,  as  a  place  of  punishment  for 
the  disobedient,  and  all  the  opposers  of  God,  who 
maketh  the  law  (Rev.  14:  9,  10;  19:  20;  21 :  8). 
WHio  will  say,  then,  that  there  is  no  law  in  the 
New  Testament  and  in  its  religion  ? 

Love  and  law  are  in  the  Old  Testament ;  law 
and  love  are  in  the  New.  That  "  God  is  love ; 
and  [that]  he  that  abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God, 
and  God  abideth  in  him"  (i  John  4:  16), — is 
not  a  truth  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  New 
Covenant,  alone;  it  was  in  the  Old  Testament, 
or  the  Old  Covenant,  also.  God  was  always  in 
Christ,  and  God  always  bore  for  man  the  love 
which  showed  itself  in  Christ  as  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God's  love  for  man.  "  Before  Abraham 
was  born,  I  am,"  said  Jesus  to  the  Jews  (John  8: 
58).  "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my 
day ;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad  "  (John  8 :  56). 
God  spoke  out  of  the  thunderings  of  Alt.  Sinai, 
telling  of  his  love  unto  the  thousandth  genera- 


Love  in  the  Old  Testament,  Law  in  the  New        63 

tion  of  those  who  would  love  him  and  keep  his 
commandments  (Exod.  20:  6).  Prophet,  and 
psalmist,  and  scribe,  and  apostle,  alike  recognized 
love  as  the  prompting  and  requirement  of  law, 
Godward  and  manward.  ''  Will  Jehovah  be 
pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or  with  ten  thou- 
sands of  rivers  of  oil?  .  .  .  What  doth  Je- 
hovah require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to 
love  kindness,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy 
God?  "  said  Micah  (Micah  6:  7,  8).  The  Psalm- 
ist says : 

"  It  is  time  for  Jehovah  to  work ; 
For  they  have  made  void  thy  law. 
Therefore  I  love  thy  commandments 
Above  gold,  yea,  above  fine  gold. 
Therefore  I  esteem  all  thy  precepts  concerning 
all  things  to  be  right"  (Psa.  119:  126-128). 

Said  the  Jewish  scribe,  "  To  love  him  [the 
Lord  thy  God]  with  all  the  heart,  and  with  all 
the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  strength,  and 
to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself,  is  much  more 
than  all  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  " 
(Mark  12:  33).  The  Apostle  Paul  sums  up  the 
whole  matter  in  the  words :  "He  that  loveth  his 
neighbor  hath  fulfilled  the  law.  .  .  .  Love 
worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbor:  love  therefore  is 
the  fulfilment  of  the  law  "  (Rom.  13 :  8,  10). 

Mere  obedience  to  law  could  not  save  a  man. 


64  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

God  never  taught  that  it  could.  Man  never  had 
reason  to  think  that  it  could.  Love  was  shown 
in  God's  laws ;  love  prompted  man  to  doing 
as  the  loving  God  wanted  done ;  love  trusted  God 
beyond  all  sight  and  proof.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment this  was  taught  in  precept  and  in  promise. 
In  the  New  Testament  it  was  taught  in  fresh 
prominence  and  power,  by  the  crowning  evidence 
of  God's  love,  and  the  addition  of  a  new  motive 
for  man's  recognition  of  it,  in  the  gift  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  man. 
Sovereign  and  Saviour.  "  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  belleveth  on  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life"  (John  3:  16).  "Herein 
is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved 
us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins.  Beloved,  if  God  so  loved  us,  we  also 
ought  to  love  one  another"  (i  John  4:  10,  ii). 


VII 

IN  HI5  NAME,  NOT  FOR  H15  SAKE 

A  Christian  believer  is  specifically  assured  that 
he  can  come  to  God  "  in  the  name  of  "  Jesus. 
No  such  assurance  is  given  him,  in  the  Bible, 
that  he  will  have  his  prayers  answered  ''  for  the 
sake  of "  Jesus.  Yet  the  phrase  "  for  Christ's 
sake,"  or  *'  for  His  sake,"  is  even  more  com- 
monly used  in  modern  prayers  than  "in  Christ's 
name,"  or  ''  in  His  name."  What  is  the  reason 
for  this  ?  Is  the  error  a  common  one  of  suppos- 
ing that  "  in  His  name  "  means  the  same  as  ''  for 
His  sake  "  ?  Or  is  there  no  particular  thought 
in  the  ordinary  mind  as  to  the  meaning  of  either 
phrase?  It  certainly  is  too  important  a  matter 
not  to  be  well  understood  and  carefully  consid- 
ered. 

Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  when  he  was  to 
leave  them  for  a  season,  as  to  his  return  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  If 
ye  shall  ask  anything  of  the  Father,  he  will  give 
it  you  [who  are]  in  my  name.  Hitherto  ye  have 
asked  nothing  in  my  name:  [now]  ask,  and  ye 
shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  made  full 
(John  i6:  23,  24)."  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask 
in  my  name,  that  will  I  do,  that  the  Father  may 

65 


66  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

be  glorified  in  the  Son.  If  ye  shall  ask  me  any- 
thing in  my  name,  that  will  I  do"  (John  14:  13). 
"  In  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my 
Father,  arid  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you."  (John  14 : 
20.)  What  is  here  meant  by  ''  in  my  name  "  ? 
What,  indeed,  is  one's  *'  name  "  as  the  term  is 
used  in  the  Bible,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  and  in  primitive  thought  and  customs  gen- 
erally ? 

One's  "  name,"  as  thus  spoken  of,  is  not  a  mere 
designation,  or  label;  it  is  one's  truest  self,  or 
personality.  It  enwraps  one's  very  being  as  a 
covering  and  protection,  as  the  flag  of  one's 
country  enwraps  and  shields  its  every  citizen 
when  endangered.  Thus  ''  the  name  of  Jehovah 
is  a  strong  tower :  the  righteous  runneth  into  it, 
and  is  safe."  (Prov.  18:  10.)  It  was  while 
enclosed  in  that  name  that  David  confidently  met 
Goliath,  and  vanquished  him.  David  said,  "  Thou 
comest  to  me  with  a  sword,  and  with  a  spear, 
and  with  a  javelin :  but  I  come  to  thee  [enclosed] 
in  the  name  of  the  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  God  of 
the  armies  of  Israel,  which  thou  hast  defied." 
(i  Sam.  17:  45).  Similarly,  one  who  is  in  Christ 
is  sure  of  acceptance  with  Christ  and  with  God, 
as  being  in  the  common  name,  or  personality,  of 
the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  disciple ;  or, 
as  Jesus  expresses  it,  "  I  am  in  my  Father,  and 


In  His  Name,  Not  for  His  Sake  67 

ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you"  (John  14:  20).  That 
is  being  "  in  His  name,"  Uving  "  in  His  name," 
praying  ''  in  His  name." 

In  this  view  of  the  truth,  it  is  not  the  mention 
of  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  the  being  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  that  gives  one  acceptance  with 
Jesus  and  with  the  Father.  Indeed,  it  would 
perhaps  better  convey  to  many  the  idea  of  the 
promise,  as  Jesus  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  if  the 
clauses  in  our  English  translation  were  arranged 
differently,  without  in  any  degree  doing  violence 
to  them :  **  If  ye  [being]  in  my  name,  shall  ask 
me  anything,  that  will  I  do"  (John  14:  14). 
"  Whatsoever  ye  [being]  in  my  name,  shall 
ask,  that  will  I  do"  (John  14:  13). 

Thus  Jesus  communes  with  his  Father  con- 
cerning the  Name  that  is  his,  and  his  Father's, 
and  in  which  he  desires  to  have  his  disciples 
kept:  ''Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  thy  Name, 
which  thou  hast  given  me  [that  is,  keep  in 
thy  Name,  them  which  thou  hast  given  me],  that 
they  may  [in  thy  Name]  be  one,  even  as  we 
are  [one].  While  I  was  with  them  [here  in  the 
flesh]  I  kept  them  in  thy  Name.  .  .  .  But 
now  I  come  to  thee"  (John  17:  11-13).  And, 
therefore,  Jesus  confidently  commends  to  his 
Father's  keeping  all  his  who  are  in  that  Holy 
Name. 


68  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

The  Revision  has  made  some  changes  that 
bring  out  the  truth  more  clearly.  For  instance, 
the  King  James  version  had  it,  at  Acts  4:  12, 
''There  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given 
among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved."  The 
Revision  more  correctly  renders  this :  *'  Neither 
is  there  any  other  name  under  heaven,  that  is 
given  among  men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved." 
This  shows  the  difference — "wherein,"  not 
"whereby." 

How  different  is  this  idea  from  the  one  that 
might  seem  to  be  conveyed  in  the  common  con- 
clusion to  a  prayer,  "  All  this  we  ask  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,"  as  though  we,  the 
petitioners,  were  apart  from  the  one  prayed  to, 
and  not  one  with  him  and  in  him ;  he  in  the 
Father,  and  we  in  him,  and  he  in  us.  No  one 
who  feels  that  he  is  in  Christ — enclosed  in 
Christ's  name — one  with  the  Father  in  Christ, 
ought  to  address  God  as  though  he  were  apart 
from  him,  not  privileged  to  come  to  him  freely, 
trustfully,  making  known  his  needs  and  desires. 

For  Christ's  sake,  for  the  Lord's  sake,  for 
Jesus'  sake,  for  the  gospel's  sake,  for  the  truth's 
sake,  and  other  such  phrases — those  are  very 
different  terms.  If  they  are  used  in  prayer,  they 
ought  to  be  used  intelligently.  Where  such 
terms  are  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  the 


In  His  Name,  Not  for  His  Sake  69 

context  plainly  shows  their  meaning.  "  Blessed 
are  ye  when  men  shall  reproach  you,  and  perse- 
cute you,  and  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you 
falsely,  for  my  sake  "  (Matt.  5:11).  "In  their 
synagogues  they  will  scourge  you;  yea  and  be- 
fore governors  and  kings  shall  ye  be  brought 
for  my  sake  "  (Matt.  10:  17).  "  He  that  loseth 
his  hfe  for  my  sake  shall  find  it "  (Matt.  10:  39). 
*'We  are  fools  for  Christ's  sake"  (i  Cor.  4: 
10).  It  is  evident  what  such  phrases  mean. 
"  For  the  sake  of  "  Christ  is  for  the  cause  of 
Christ.  One  can  ask  help  "  for  the  sake  of " 
Christ  when  he  feels  that  his  cause  is  identified 
with  Christ  as  over  against  Christ's  enemies,  and 
that  to  give  help  to  the  petitioner  is  to  win  honor 
to  Christ's  cause. 

In  the  Old  Testament  times,  Jehovah  was  said 
to  have  set  his  name  in  the  tabernacle,  or  in  the 
temple,  as  the  central  place  of  his  worship.  In 
view  of  this  fact,  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  na- 
tion could  ask  for  protection  for  his  "  name's 
sake,"  because  his  honor  was  supposed  to  be 
involved  in  the  protection  of  that  place  and  peo- 
ple. But  this  was  obviously  on  God's  own  ac- 
count that  he  was  to  act,  and  not  on  account  of 
the  people  petitioning  for  help.  For  "his  sake," 
or  for  "  his  name's  sake,"  was  a  direct  petition 
for  God's  own  glory,  not  for  a  reflected  glory 


70  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

accruing  to  his  people  because  of  their  appeal 
to  him,  or  their  dependence  on  him. 

As  Christ's  disciples,  we  are  authorized  to  be 
in  his  name,  to  speak  in  his  name,  to  ask  in  his 
name,  confidently,  nothing  doubting.  All  our 
prayers  ought  to  be  while  we  are  in  his  name, 
whether  his  name  be  mentioned  or  not.  There 
are  special  occasions,  conditions,  and  circum- 
stances, when  it  would  be  manifestly  proper  for 
us  to  ask  help  from  God  for  Christ's  sake.  In 
such  cases,  we  ought  to  pray  understandingly, 
as  realizing  our  peculiar  reason  for  thus  praying. 
But  we  ought  not  to  fall  into  the  common  error 
of  supposing  that  "  in  His  name  "  is  in  any  sense 
identical  with  "  for  His  sake." 


VIII 

THE  HOLY  SPIRITS  MISSION  TO  AND 
THROUGH  BLLILVLRS 

In  the  popular  thought  of  Christians,  an  im- 
portant mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  arresting 
the  attention  of  unbelievers,  striving  with  those 
who  are  out  of  Christ,  bringing  sinners  under 
conviction  of  sin,  and  converting  or  regenerating 
the  ungodly.  Yet  there  is  little,  if  anything,  in 
the  New  Testament  to  justify  this  belief,  or  to 
lead  one  to  suppose  that  the  mission  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  directly  to  any  who  are  not  already  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus. 

As  to  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  and  workings, 
the  New  Testament  teachings,  both  in  precept 
and  illustration,  are  explicit  and  uniform.  The 
Holy  Spirit  dwells  with,  and  abides  in,  believers 
in  Jesus,  having  no  immediate  communication 
with  unbelievers.  Whatever  mission  to  the 
ungodly  the  Holy  Spirit  has,  is  exercised  medi- 
ately through  believers,  not  immediately  on  the 
unbeliever.  This  truth  is  of  main  importance  to 
the  believer,  who  so  often  fails  to  perceive  it, 
and  hence  to  avail  himself  of  the  power  await- 
ing his  acceptance  of  it;  while  the  consequences 


72  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

of  the  believer's  failure  to  recognize  it  are  mo- 
mentous to  unbelievers  who  are  neglected  on 
account  of  this  error. 

It  is  in,  and  by,  and  through  the  Holy  Spirit's 
power,  that  believers  in  Jesus  can  know  the 
truth,  can  proclaim  the  truth  effectively,  or  can 
influence  in  favor  of  the  truth  any  unbeliever  to 
whom  they  are  sent,  or  in  whose  behalf  they 
labor  and  pray.  It  is  by  and  through  the  agency 
of  believers  who  are  in  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  any  unbeliever  is  attracted  to  the 
truth,  or  is  shown  his  sinfulness,  or  is  won  to 
the  loving  service  of  Jesus.  The  trusting  be- 
liever in  Jesus  is,  as  it  were,  the  agent,  the  in- 
strument, the  avenue,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  be- 
half of  the  outside  world ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  supreme  source  of  all  knowledge  and  power 
and  practical  efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  trust- 
ing believer  in  Jesus,  both  in  that  believer's 
personal  attainment  and  in  his  evangelistic  en- 
deavor in  the  world.  On  all  these  points  the 
New  Testament  teachings  would  seem  to  be 
unqualified  and  unmistakable. 

Jesus  promised  to  his  disciples  an  unfailing 
supply  of  the  satisfying  water  of  life,  for  them- 
selves and  for  others.  "  This  spake  he  of  the 
Spirit,  which  they  that  believed  on  him  were  to 
receive"   (John  7,  39),  not,  as  so  many  would 


The  Holy  Spirit's  Mission  To  and  Through  Believers  73 

seem  to  read  the  promise,  "  This  spake  he  of 
the  Spirit,  by  which  they  that  receive  were  to  be 
made  believers  in  him."  Again  he  said :  *'  I  will 
pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  [my  dis- 
ciples] another  Comforter,  that  he  may  be  with 
you  for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth :  whom  the 
world  [the  outside  unbelievers]  cannot  receive ; 
for  it  beholdeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him: 
ye  know  him ;  for  he  abideth  with  you,  and  shall 
be  in  you  "  (John  14:  16,  17).  As  to  the  source 
of  all  power  to  his  disciples  in  their  witnessing 
for  him,  Jesus  said  specifically  to  those  disciples, 
at  the  very  time  of  his  ascension :  "  Ye  shall  re- 
ceive power,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  come  upon 
you:  and  [in  that  power]  ye  shall  be  my  wit- 
nesses .  .  .  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth"  (Acts  1:8).  In  fulfilment  of  these 
promises  of  Jesus,  the  Holy  Spirit  came  upon  his 
disciples  at  the  following  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
those  disciples  were  thenceforward  ''  filled  with 
joy  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Acts  13:  52)  ; 
as  it  is  the  privilege  of  every  disciple  of  Jesus 
to  be,  at  the  present  time,  and  until  the  coming 
again  of  Jesus. 

This  truth  the  disciples  understood  and  illus- 
trated in  all  their  teaching  and  in  all  their  toil- 
ings.  When  Peter  was  first  preaching  in  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  sin-convicted 


74  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

hearers  asked  what  was  their  duty,  in  view  of 
their  transgression  and  its  consequences,  "  Peter 
said  unto  them.  Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the 
remission  of  your  sins ;  and  ye  [also]  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Acts  2:  38). 
He  did  not  say,  "  Receive  ye  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  then  you  may  be  baptized  as  disci- 
ples of  Jesus  Christ."  Again,  when  standing  be- 
fore the  Jewish  council,  Peter  and  his  fellow- 
apostles  testified  of  Jesus  as  the  crucified  and 
risen  Saviour,  saying :  "  And  we  are  witnesses 
of  these  things ;  and  so  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom 
God  hath  given  to  them  that  obey  him  "  (Acts  5  : 
32)  ;  not,  "  God  causes  to  obey  him  those  who 
have  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  apostles 
and  other  disciples  were  "  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit"  (Acts  2:4).  Peter,  as  a  preacher,  was 
''  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Acts  4:8).  Ste- 
phen, as  a  preacher,  was  "  full  of  faith  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit"  (Acts  6:  5).  Barnabas,  as  a 
preacher,  was  "  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of 
faith  "  (Acts  11 :  24).  Paul,  as  a  preacher,  was 
"  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Acts  13 :  9).  The 
entire  church  in  all  Judaea  and  Galilee  and  Sa- 
maria was  edified  and  was  multiplied  when  it  was 
''  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  and  in  the  com- 
fort of  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Acts  9:  31). 


The  Holy  Spirit's  Mission  To  and  Through  Believers  75 

When  the  prayers  and  alms  of  the  Gentile  Cor- 
neHus  had  come  up  to  God  acceptably,  and  God 
had  sent  an  angel  messenger  to  direct  Cornelius 
as  to  his  duty,  it  was  not  until  Peter,  himself  a 
man  already  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
was  present  to  proclaim  to  Cornelius  and  his 
fellow-hearers  the  truth  concerning  Jesus  as 
the  Saviour  of  sinners,  that  "  the  Holy  Spirit 
fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word."  Even 
when  Jesus  himself  met  Saul  the  persecutor,  on 
the  road  to  Damascus,  and  summoned  him  to  his 
service,  it  was  not  until  three  days  were  passed 
that  Saul  received  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  then  that 
blessing  came  to  hirti  in  the  appointed  way 
through  Ananias,  who  before  this  was  a  disciple 
of  Jesus.  Saul's  conversion  was  not  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  through  the  presence  and  voice  of 
Jesus.  Then  Saul  was  a  subject  for  the  Holy 
Spirit's  mission  through  a  Spirit-endowed  be- 
liever in  Jesus.  Afterwards  Paul  found  a  dozen 
disciples  or  so  in  Ephesus,  who  were  apparently 
in  the  state  in  which  he  had  been  in  that  three 
days'  interval  of  darkness  before  Ananias  was 
brought  to  him.  "  Did  ye  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit  when  ye  believed  ?  "  asked  Paul  of  these 
men.  '*  And  they  said  unto  him.  Nay,  we  did 
not  so  much  as  hear  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
[yet]  given."     Then  he  laid  his  hands  on  those 


76  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

believers,  and  "  the  Holy  Spirit  came  on  them  " 
(Acts  19:  2,  6)  also. 

It  was  apparently  in  this  view  of  the  order  of 
the  Holy  Spirit's  workings,  and  of  the  scope  of 
the  Holy  Spirit's  work,  that  Paul  wrote  to  be- 
lieving disciples  in  Galatia  and  in  Rome :  "  Be- 
cause ye  are  sons  [of  God],  God  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father"  (Gal.  4:  6).  "The  fruit  of  the  Spirit 
[in  the  hearts  of  believers]  is  love,  joy,  peace, 
long-suffering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness, 
meekness,  self-control  "  (Gal.  5:  22,  23) — all  the 
Christian  graces,  in  fact.  "  If  [therefore]  we 
[disciples]  live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let  us 
[as  disciples]  also  walk"  (Gal.  5:  25).  "For 
we  know  not  [even]  how  to  pray  as  we  ought; 
but  the  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered ;  and 
he  that  searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit  [in  our  behalf],  because  he 
maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to 
the  will  of  God"  (Rom.  8:  26,  27).  And  so 
throughout  the  teachings  of  Paul  and  of  the 
other  New  Testament  writers. 

It  is  a  strange  fact,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
explicitness  and  uniformity  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment teachings  on  this  subject,  there  is  a  wide- 
spread  popular  opinion   that   the   Holy  Spirit's 


The  Holy  Spirit's  Mission  To  and  Through  Believers  77 

work  is  directly  and  immediately  on  or  in  the 
heart  of  the  unbeliever,  without  the  intervention 
or  agency  of  the  Christian  believer.  To  hear 
what  is  said  in  the  sermons,  or  sung  in  the 
hymns,  or  prayed  in  the  prayers,  of  many  Chris- 
tians, one  might  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
sent  directly  to  the  unbelieving  sinner,  to  strive 
with  him,  to  show  him  his  sin,  and  to  point  him 
to  the  Saviour ;  and  that  therefore  the  Christian 
preacher  or  teacher  has  rather  to  wait  the  results 
of  this  work  of  the  Spirit,  than  to  be  the  instru- 
ment or  the  avenue  of  this  work.  Many  a  Chris- 
tian seems  to  think  that  the  Holy  Spirit's  work 
is  that  of  a  revival  preacher,  in  moving  sinners 
to  repentance  by  a  direct  appeal  to  their  con- 
sciences and  understandings,  instead  of  stirring 
up  Christians  to  appeal,  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit,  to  unbelievers  to  believe  and  to  turn  to 
God. 

It  would  almost  seem  as  if  Christians  thought 
that  preachers  and  teachers,  at  home  or  abroad, 
were  not  a  necessity,  in  the  declared  plan  of 
God's  working,  in  order  to  the  Holy  Spirit's 
evangelizing  of  the  world ;  that,  in  fact,  the  Holy 
Spirit — in  the  present  dispensation — would  be 
just  as  likely  to  reach  sinners  without  the  inter- 
vention of  Christian  believers  as  with  them.  That 
this  error  of  opinion  has  no  basis  in  the  teach- 


78  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ings  of  the  Bible,  does  not,  certainly,  make  it  any 
the  less  dangerous  in  its  practical  influence ;  nor 
does  this  lack  of  foundation  seem  to  hinder  its 
acceptance  by  many  a  professed  student  of  the 
Bible. 

There  would  even  seem  to  be  more  reason- 
ableness in  the  high  ecclesiastical  view  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  abides  in,  and  works  through,  the  col- 
lective church  alone,  for  the  winning  of  sinners 
and  the  saving  of  souls,  than  for  the  unbib- 
lical  view,  so  common  among  Protestant  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Holy  Spirit  works  in  and  on  the 
hearts  of  the  ungodly  for  their  winning  to  Christ. 
There  is  no  justification  in  the  New  Testament 
text  for  the  claim  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
directly  upon  the  sinner  to  induce  him  to  believe 
in  Jesus  or  to  commit  himself  to  him. 

It  is  true  that,  in  this  present  dispensation  of 
the  Spirit,  all  power  in  the  evangelizing  of  the 
world,  and  in  the  swaying  of  the  hearts  of  men 
towards  Christ  and  in  the  service  of  Christ,  is  pri- 
marily with  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  the  Bible 
teachings,  works  in  and  by  and  through  believers 
in  Jesus.  Hence  if  one  who  is  not  a  believer  in 
Jesus  is  to  be  won  to  discipleship,  the  question  is 
not,  Will  the  Holy  Spirit  work  on  his  mind  im- 
mediately; or  will  the  Holy  Spirit  work  through 


The  Holy  Spirit's  Mission  To  and  Through  Believers  79 

one  who  already  believes?  for  that  question  the 
Bible  has  already  answered.  The  question  would 
rather  seem  to  be,  By  which  disciple  of  Jesus  is 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  work  for  the  winning  of  this 
sinner  to  the  loving  service  of  the  Saviour?  If 
indeed  a  sinner  be  won  through  the  Bible  itself, 
that  is  really  being  won  through  the  believer  who 
wrote  that  portion  of  the  Bible.  The  Holy 
Spirit  can  use  the  written  words,  like  the  spoken 
words,  of  a  chosen  messenger  of  God  to  an  un- 
believing soul.  But  in  every  case  the  Spirit 
reaches  the  believer  mediately,  not  immediately. 
H  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  drawing 
were  to  be  likened,  for  a  mere  figure  of  speech, 
to  magnetic  attraction,  the  disciple  through  whom 
the  Holy  Spirit  works  would  be  the  already  mag- 
netized piece  of  steel,  and  the  outside  sinner 
would  be  the  bit  of  iron  in  its  natural  state.  The 
natural  iron  is  not  moved  by  itself  or  in  its  own 
power,  neither  is  it,  in  the  present  course  of 
things,  reached  directly  by  the  primitive  lode- 
stone  ;  but  it  is  by  means  of  the  magnetized  steel 
that  this  iron  is  now  lifted  and  drawn  in  the  di- 
rection of  the  Polar  Star  of  the  universe.  The 
power  is  the  mysterious  magnetic  attraction,  but 
the  method  of  that  attraction's  working  is 
through  the  magnetized  steel  that  was  once  a 
bit  of  impotent  iron.     So  it  is  with  him  that  is 


80  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

won  of  the  Spirit,  or  by  whom  the  Spirit  wins, 
in  the  plan  of  God's  working. 

If  Christians  generally  would  but  realize  this 
truth  concerning  the  mission  and  workings  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  what  an  added  sense  of  respon- 
sibility would  rest  on  them,  as  the  chosen  instru- 
ments and  avenues  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  power  in 
their  sphere  of  labor  and  of  influence !  Without 
the  Holy  Spirit's  power  no  Christian  can  pray 
aright,  or  study  aright,  or  teach  aright,  or  live 
aright.  And  unless  Christians  are  ready,  as  the 
believing  disciples  of  Jesus,  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  for  the  declaring  of  the  truth  impres- 
sively to  outside  sinners,  the  one  agency  which 
God  chooses  to  honor  for  the  reaching  of  those 
sinners  is  lacking — ^because  of  the  unreadiness 
of  believers. 

Sinners  will  not,  it  is  true,  be  drawn  to  Jesus 
unless  the  Holy  Spirit  draws  them ;  but  we  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  draw  sinners  to  Jesus  except  through 
believers  in  Jesus;  for  this  is  the  dis- 
closed plan  and  order  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work- 
ing in  this  present  world  of  ours.  This  is  the 
Bible  teaching,  even  if  it  be  not  the  common 
Christian  idea. 


IX 


CONVLR5ION  MAN'5  RESPONSIBILITY, 
NOT  GOD'S 

As  a  natural  consequence  of  the  common  mis- 
understanding of  the  mission  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  there  is  a  widespread  popular  feeling 
that  sinners  are  converted  from  their  evil  course 
to  the  service  of  God,  rather  than  that  they  them- 
selves turn  to  God,  when  they  see  it  to  be  their 
duty  to  do  so.  The  incorrect  language  of  our 
ordinary  English  Bible,  in  referring  to  this  act 
or  process  of  conversion,  has  been  a  fruitful 
cause  of  this  misconception. 

In  our  old  version  it  would  appear  that  Jesus 
said  to  his  disciples,  "  Except  ye  be  converted, 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Matt.  i8 :  3).  But 
in  the  new,  and  more  correct,  version  it  reads, 
"  Except  ye  turn,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  In  our  old  version,  again,  Jesus  is  said 
to  have  counseled  Peter,  in  view  of  his  coming 
denial  and  repentance,  "  When  thou  art  con- 
verted, strengthen  thy  brethren  "  (Luke  22:  32). 
But  the  new  version  gives  it  thus :  *'  When  once 

81 


82  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

thou  hast  turned  again,  establish  thy  brethren." 
According  to  the  old  version,  Peter  preached, 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  the  people  in  the 
temple  courts :  "  Repent  ye  therefore,  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Ac- 
cording to  our  new  version,  Peter's  call  was: 
"  Repent  ye  therefore,  and  turn  again,  that  your 
sins  may  be  blotted  out"  (Acts  3:  19). 

These  differences  in  the  two  versions,  in  their 
teachings  on  this  point,  represent  fairly  well  the 
difference  between  the  popular  idea  of  "conver- 
sion," and  the  Bible  idea  of  it.  The  popular 
thought  is  that  conversion  is  wrought  on  or  in  a 
man  by  outside  influences,  or  by  a  force  from 
above.  The  Bible  thought  is  that  conversion  is 
the  act  of  the  individual  himself,  for  which  he  is 
directly  responsible,  however  he  may  be  affected 
by  influences  from  without  and  above.  The  old 
version  seemed  to  say  to  the  sinner,  "  Be  con- 
verted." The  new  version  distinctly  says  to 
him,  "Turn"  (Matt.  13:  15;  Mark  4:  12;  Luke 
22 :  32 ;  John  12 :  40 ;  Acts  3 :  19 ;  28 :  27) .  There 
is  no  such  command,  either  in  word  or  spirit  as 
"  Be  converted,"  in  the  new  and  more  correct 
version.  Yet  that  command  is  still  repeated  in 
pulpit  and  press,  as  if  it  were  justified  by  the 
Bible  teachings,  and  many  believe  that  it  is  not 
at  variance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 


Conversion  Man's  Responsibility,  Not  God's        83 

The  practical  bearing  of  this  truth  on  the  ap- 
peals made  to  sinners  to  submit  themselves  to 
Christ,  and  on  sinners  in  their  response  to  these 
appeals,  is  incalculably  important.  It  makes  a 
vast  difference  whether  a  man  is  summoned  to 
immediate  personal  action  in  his  attitude  and 
conduct  toward  Christ,  or  whether  he  is  led  to 
suppose  that  he  must  wait  passively  for  some 
process  on  or  in  him  which  shall  give  him  differ- 
ent views  and  feelings,  and  make  him  a  different 
man.  The  tendency  of  this  error  as  to  the  Bible 
call  to  men  has  been  manifest  in  innumerable  in- 
stances, whatever  good  has  been  done,  in  spite 
of  it,  by  those  who  held  the  error,  or  who  were 
appealed  to  in  view  of  it. 

The  writer  knew  an  upright.  God-fearing  man, 
who  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  Bible  and  an 
earnest  student  of  it,  who  was  faithful  in  all  his 
duties  as  he  understood  them,  constant  in  private 
prayer,  conducting  family  worship  day  by  day 
in  his  household,  a  teacher  in  the  Sunday-school, 
and  an  example  to  Christian  believers  in  his  re- 
lations to  God  and  to  his  fellow-men,  who  was 
kept  back  from  communion  with  Christ's  people 
in  church  fellowship  by  the  thought  that  he  had 
not  been  converted,  and  that  he  could  not  prop- 
erly connect  himself  with  the  church  until  he  had 
been.     He  grew  gray  in  his  waiting  to  be  con- 


84  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

verted,  and  finally  he  died  without  being  con- 
scious of  any  experience  which  seemed  to  him 
hke  conversion  as  he  was  taught  to  expect  it. 
Of  course,  God  knows  his  own,  and  will  care 
for  them,  however  they  may  be  misled  by  wrong 
teachings  or  mis-translations ;  but  they  may  suf- 
fer seriously  all  their  lifetime  from  a  lack  of  priv- 
ileges to  which  they  were  entitled,  but  which 
were  wrongly  denied  them. 

When  the  writer  urged  upon  a  young  man  his 
personal  duty  to  become  a  follower  of  Christ,  the 
answer  was,  "  I  wish  I  could  be,  but  I  am  not 
converted,  nor  can  I  convert  myself.  I  go  to 
church  regularly,  and  I  put  myself  in  the  way  of 
a  blessing,  but  conversion  doesn't  come."  That 
young  man  had  been  taught  by  his  parents,  and 
his  church  teachers,  that  he  must  be  converted, 
and  he  waited  aimlessly  for  the  result. 

In  another  instance,  a  young  man  of  excep- 
tionally high  standards  of  thought  and  conduct 
told  the  writer  that  he  had  put  himself  in  the  way 
of  the  best  influences,  in  the  hope  of  "  being  con- 
verted," but  without  avail.  He  had  sat  under 
good  preaching,  and  had  been  talked  to  and 
prayed  with  by  excellent  men ;  but  he  was  not 
converted.     There  has  been  many  a  case  like  this. 

When,  again,  the  writer  urged  upon  a  man 
the  duty  of  a  change  of  attitude  toward  Christ, 


Conversion  Man's  Responsibility,  Not  God's       85 

and  pressed  him  for  a  decision,  the  man  said  he 
would  gladly  begin  immediately  to  follow  Christ 
as  his  Master.  They  knelt  together,  and  the 
writer  prayed  with  and  for  the  other.  The  other 
responded  heartily,  and,  as  he  rose  from  his 
knees,  he  exclaimed : 

"  I  guess  it  is  all  right  now.  I  sort  o'  felt  some- 
thing break  inside  o'  me  just  then." 

He  thought  he  was  converted.  If,  in  conse- 
quence of  that  thought,  he  was  encouraged  to 
trust  Christ  and  serve  him,  he  was  advantaged 
thereby ;  but  if  he  merely  relied  on  his  belief  that 
he  had  had  a  saving  experience,  he  was  likely 
to  become  fixed  in  a  harmful  error. 

On  one  occasion,  when  the  writer  talked  with 
an  ill-tempered,  violently  profane  man,  he  was 
moved  to  rebuke  the  man  for  his  godless  course, 
and  for  his  open  defiance  of  the  authority  of 
God.  At  this  the  man  changed  his  tone,  and 
said  whiningly : 

"  Oh !  when  it  comes  to  that,  I'm  all  right.  I 
know  Vm  a  rough  fellow,  but  I  was  soundly 
converted  twenty-three  years  ago  the  seventeenth 
of  last  September,  and  I've  never  lost  that  old 
hope." 

All  that  that  man  had  of  religion  was  the  men- 
tal record  of  his  "  sound  "  conversion,  and  his 
hopes  rested  on  the  saving  power  of  that. 


86  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Mr.  Moody  tells  of  the  definition  of  "  conver- 
sion "  given  by  a  believer  who  was  won  to  Christ 
while  a  soldier  in  the  British  army. 

"  It  was  just,"  he  said,  '*  Halt !  About  face ! 
March !  " 

That  is  the  Bible  idea  of  conversion,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  popular  idea,  illustrated  in  the 
other  cases. 

The  writer  heard  a  preacher  telHng  his  con- 
gregation, as  they  waited  on  his  words  of  coun- 
sel, that  they  could  not  convert  themselves,  and 
that  there  was,  in  fact,  nothing  for  them  to  do 
but  to  wait  for  God's  movement  in  this  matter. 
Such  preaching  would  not  lead  the  hearers  to 
action,  nor  was  it  intended  to. 

As  "  conversion,"  in  the  Bible  use  of  that  term, 
is  the  deliberate  turning  of  an  individual  toward 
God,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  a  man 
may  thus  turn  as  often  as  he  finds  himself  in  a 
wrong  attitude  toward  God,  or  facing  in  the 
wrong  direction.  When  Andrew  found  Jesus, 
and  was  convinced  that  he  was  the  Messiah, 
Peter  turned,  or  "converted,"  and  followed 
Jesus.  When,  again,  Peter  "  turned  "  away  from 
Jesus,  by  denying  him,  Jesus  wanted  him  to  turn, 
or  convert,  back  again.  Thus  any  man  can  turn, 
or  convert,  again,  as  many  times  as  he  goes 
astray. 


Conversion  Man's  Responsibility,  Not  God's        87 

This  view  of  conversion  does  not  necessarily 
affect  the  theological  doctrines  of  "  falling  from 
grace "  and  of  "  the  perseverance  of  saints." 
Whatever  be  thought  on  these  points,  the  doc- 
trine does  not  pivot  on  the  meaning  of  the  Bible 
word  "  convert."  That  word  can  hardly  be  in 
dispute. 

In  illustration  of  the  fact,  however,  that  a  mis- 
taken and  unbiblical  view  of  conversion  is  wide- 
spread and  misleading,  a  circular  sent  broadcast 
through  the  country  from  a  center  of  religious 
interest  in  New  York  City  furnishes  abundant 
evidence.  The  object  of  this  circular  is  to  obtain 
information  for  permanent  preservation  as  "  a 
study  of  conversion."  It  gives  a  series  of  spe- 
cific questions  which  the  person  receiving  it  is 
desired  to  answer.  Here  are  specimens  of  these 
questions,  with  this  preliminary  caution: 

**  Persons  answering  the  following  questions 
should  be  especially  careful  not  to  confuse  beliefs 
and  experiences  of  a  later  date  with  those  of  the 
time  of  conversion." 

"  Where,  on  what  occasion,  and  under  what 
circumstances,  were  you  converted?  Had  you, 
before  that  moment,  made  up  your  mind  that 
you  would  be  converted  if  possible?  Tell,  in 
detail,  what  you  then  meant  by  conversion.  Why 
did  you  desire  it?    What  did  you  expect  of  it? 


88  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

.     .     .     What  was  the  state  of  your  health?" 

"  Relate  your  conversion.  What  were  the  var- 
ious thoughts  in  your  mind,  and  the  various  feel- 
ings in  your  heart,  at  the  moment  of  conversion  ? 
.  .  .  Were  you  very  much  moved  ?  By  what 
or  by  whom  were  you  moved  ?  " 

"  Describe  your  feelings  and  your  thoughts 
immediately  after  conversion.  Were  you  aware 
that  you  had  experienced  conversion?  In  what 
particulars  had  you  become  changed  ?  " 

"  If  you  have  passed  through  more  than  one 
similar  experience,  or  through  other  less  mo- 
mentous moral  crises,  describe  each  one  sepa- 
rately, giving  date  of  each." 

In  all  these  questions  not  a  word  is  said  as  in- 
dicating or  suggesting  any  sense  of  responsibility, 
on  the  part  of  the  individual,  for  his  turning  from 
the  wrong  to  the  right,  from  self  to  God.  All 
of  them  look  not  to  a  man's  turning  to  God,  but 
to  a  man's  being  converted  to  God. 

Turning  to  God  whenever  one  is  away  from 
him  is  the  plain  duty  of  believer  and  unbeliever. 
That  is  conversion.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Bible  which,  read  and  understood  as  it  was  writ- 
ten, would  lead  one  to  suppose  otherwise.  Of 
course,  the  power  to  turn,  or  to  go  forward,  to 
halt  or  to  move,  to  act,  to  speak,  or  to  breathe,  is 
from  God ;  but  when  God  calls  a  man  to  halt  or 


Conversion  Man's  Responsibility,  Not  God's       89 

to  turn,  God  is  ready  to  give  the  man  all  neces- 
sary power  to  enable  him  to  act  accordingly. 

Regeneration,  v^henever  that  takes  place,  is 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  it  is  not  the  work 
of  man.  But  the  Bible  never  confounds  regen- 
eration with  conversion ;  nor  ought  a  man  to 
make  this  mistake  for  himself  or  for  others. 


NLLDLLS5  WORRY  A5  TO  BLING 
"BORN  AGAIN" 

Various  theories  of  Christian  "regeneration," 
or  the  "new  birth,"  or  the  being  "born  again," 
have  been  held  and  taught  by  different  Christians 
along  the  centuries,  since  the  conversation  of 
Jesus  with  Nicodemus  was  first  recorded  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  Yet,  whatever  be  the  view  enter- 
tained, the  new  life  is  to  be  accepted  as  a  gift  or 
grace  from  God,  and  is  not  to  be  worried  over 
as  a  duty  or  work  on  the  part  of  the  individual. 

It  has  been  claimed  by  many  that  Christian 
baptism  is  the  means  or  vehicle  of  a  new  spiritual 
birth,  or  of  regeneration.  More  than  one  denom- 
ination of  Christians  has  practically  made  this 
opinion  fundamental  to  its  membership. 

Again,  it  has  been  held  by  many  that  the  term 
"conversion"  is  synonymous  with  "regeneration," 
and  that  "to  be  converted"  is  practically  the  same 
as  to  "be  born  again."  This  view  it  is,  however, 
more  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  Bible  text 
since  the  Revisers  have  removed  from  the  text 
the  passive  form,  "be  converted,"  and  substituted, 
as  more  correct,  the  active  form,  "turn." 

90 


Needless  Worry  as  to  Being  Born  Again  91 

Other  views  also  have  been  held  with  positive- 
ness  by  Christian  scholars  and  Bible  students. 
And  with  all  these  views  needless  worry  has  often 
come  to  the  individual  sinner. 

Without  entering  into  a  discussion  as  to  the 
real  meaning  of  the  term  to  ''be  born  again,"  or 
as  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  new  birth,  or 
changed  spiritual  being,  it  is  worth  while  to  call 
attention  to  the  unmistakable  fact  that  Jesus 
does  not  in  any  place,  nor  does  any  inspired  disci- 
ple of  his,  give  a  command  to  an  individual  soul 
to  *'be  born  again,"  or  speak  of  a  new  birth  as 
if  it  were  a  personal  duty  of  the  individual.  Only 
a  failure  to  perceive  the  force  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  in  that  conversation  with  Nicodemus  can 
account  for  the  error,  into  which  many  have 
fallen,  of  supposing  that  the  words  "  Ye  must 
be  born  again"  are  in  the  nature  of  a  command 
or  of  an  obligation.  It  is  the  statement  of  a  fact 
or  a  truth;  it  is  not  the  imperative  command  to 
a  duty. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  it  was 
not  to  the  multitude  on  the  hillside,  or  the  shore, 
or  by  the  way,  that  Jesus  stated  this  truth,  as  if 
it  were  to  enjoin  on  all  a  plain  duty.  It  was  in  a 
conference  at  night-time  with  a  theological  pro- 
fessor. It  is  to  be  considered  accordingly.  No 
disciple  of  Jesus,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 


92  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ment,  repeated  that  statement  to  those  who 
were  called  to  serve  and  trust  Jesus. 

"  Except  one  be  born  anew  [or,  from 
above],  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Those  are  the  words  of  Jesus.  And  again,  "Mar- 
vel not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born 
again."  This  is  not  a  command  to  a  duty,  but  is 
a  plain  statement  of  a  fact  or  a  truth.  It  is  a 
perversion  of  the  Scriptures  to  quote  the  words 
as  if  they  were  a  command. 

Being  bom,  the  first  time  or  the  second  time,  is 
clearly  not  a  duty  to  be  performed  by  ourselves. 
No  man  can  **born"  himself.  Turning  to  God, 
submitting  himself  to  God — that  is  a  duty.  Be- 
ing made  a  new  man,  being  spiritually  renewed, 
being  given  a  clearer  sight — that  is  a  blessing 
from  above.  Turning,  trusting — that  is  man's 
part.  Renewing,  regenerating — that  is  God's 
part.  If  we  will  do  our  part,  God  can  be  relied 
on  to  do  his  part.  To  doubt  this  is  wrong  and 
unjustifiable. 

Yet  this  statement  of  a  philosophical  fact  to  a 
theological  teacher  is  often  used  as  if  it  were  a 
command  in  an  address  to  a  child  or  to  the 
childlike ;  and  thus  it  is  made  a  stumbling-block 
before,  instead  of  a  help  towards  or  into,  the 
kingdom  of  God.  What  sad  consequences  may 
result  to  those  who  are  misled  by  their  mistaken 


Needless  Worry  as  to  Being  "  Born  Again  "  93 

guides,  through  this  misconception  of  an  impor- 
tant truth  as  declared  by  the  Teacher  of  teach- 
ers! 

It  is  because  the  writer  himself  groped  and 
agonized  for  long  years  in  the  Christian  life 
through  being  mistaught  by  those  who  knew  no 
better,  that  he  sounds  a  note  of  warning  against 
supposing  that  being  born  again  is  a  personal 
duty  of  the  individual  who  would  serve  and 
trust  Christ.  Whatever  view  is  held  of  the  spirit- 
ual change  spoken  of  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  "Ye 
must  be  born  anew,"  of  one  thing  we  may  be 
sure, — they  are  not  meant  to  teach  any  person 
that  he  is  to  wait  outside  the  loving  service 
of  Christ  until  some  great  change  is  wrought  in 
him,  whereby  he  becomes  personally  conscious 
that  he  has  another  nature  than  before.  The 
reference  is  clearly  to  God's  part,  not  man's,  in 
the  blessing  of  salvation. 


XI 

15  THERE  ANY  REAL  GAIN 
IN  5ALVATION? 

As  there  is  no  possibility  of  salvation  except 
to  those  who  were  lost,  the  very  term  salvation 
presupposes  the  idea  of  a  lost  condition.  Hence, 
salvation  has  ever  had  an  aspect  that  is  not  at- 
tractive to  all.  Many,  very  many,  prefer  to  be 
counted  among  those  who  were  ever  stainless, 
rather  than  among  those  who  have  been 
cleansed ;  among  the  pure  from  the  beginning 
rather  than  among  the  now  redeemed.  And  this 
it  is  that  is  one  of  the  hindrances  to  the  gospel 
message.  Thus  it  is  in  our  day,  and  thus  it  was 
in  the  day  of  Jesus. 

Salvation,  the  salvation  of  the  lost,  is  the  dis- 
tinctive message  of  the  New  Testament ;  it  is, 
indeed,  in  itself  the  ''  gospel,"  the  "  evangel,"  the 
"good  news,"  which  is  the  substance  of  that  new 
revelation  from  God.  The  Old  Testament  shows 
God's  requirements  of  man,  and  man's  failure  to 
conform  to  God's  requirements ;  it  discloses 
man's  lost  estate,  and  gives  promises  of  a  plan 
for  his  rescue.  The  New  Testament  brings  for- 
ward God's  plan  of  salvation  for  the  lost,  and 

94 


Is  There  Any  Real  Gain  In  Salvation?  95 

presses  the  offer  of  it  upon  all  who  are  in  need 
of  it. 

Not  the  reward  of  the  sinless  well-doer,  but 
the  salvation  of  the  sinner,  is  the  theme  of 
themes  of  the  gospel  story.  "  They  that  are  in 
health  have  no  need  of  a  physician ;  but  they  that 
are  sick"  (Luke  5:  31),  said  Jesus.  And  as 
showing  that  his  mission  was  a  new  and  a  start- 
ling one,  he  added :  "  But  go  ye  and  learn  what 
this  meaneth,  I  desire  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice : 
for  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners." 
(Matt.  9 :  13.)  Again  he  said :  "  The  Son  of  man 
came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost." 
(Luke  19:  10.)  Over  and  over  again  our  Lord 
affirmed  this  truth  specifically,  while  he  was  il- 
lustrating it  in  his  daily  ministry  of  love.  He 
welcomed  publicans  and  sinners,  moral  outcasts 
as  they  were,  to  his  following  and  companion- 
ship ;  and  when  he  was  criticised  for  this  he  said 
plainly  that  this  was  the  main  feature  of  his  mis- 
sion. He  even  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  there 
was  more  rejoicing  in  heaven  over  those  who 
were  saved  from  a  lost  condition  than  over  those 
who  were  never  lost;  and  that  here  on  earth, 
those  who  had  greatest  love  for  God  were  those 
who  had  had  most  forgiven  them. 

This  was  a  shocking  doctrine  to  the  average 
well-doer  in  the  days  of  our  Lord;  and  it  is  a 


96  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

doctrine  that  is  still  repugnant  to  the  natural 
mind.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  were 
the  most  upright  and  religious  classes  in  the 
community  at  that  time,  felt  that  this  doctrine 
put  a  premium  on  evil-doing,  and  tended  to 
make  men  believe  that  they  would  really  be  the 
gainers  in  the  end  by  indulging  in  sin  before 
coming  into  the  active  service  of  God.  And 
there  are  not  a  few  intelligent  and  earnest  Chris- 
tian believers  at  the  present  time  who  take  the 
same  view  of  this  doctrine ;  nor  is  it  to  be  won- 
dered at,  in  one  view  of  the  case,  that  this  is  so. 
Our  Lord's  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  a 
test  illustration  of  this  truth  of  the  gain  of  salva- 
tion, in  its  attractiveness  and  in  its  more  repel- 
lent features.  A  profligate  son,  who  has  wasted 
in  evil-doing  his  possessions  and  his  opportuni- 
ties, is  not  only  welcomed  back  to  his  home  with 
signs  of  rejoicing,  but  is  made  the  recipient  of 
tokens  of  honor  that  seem  to  put  him  into  a 
larger  prominence  in  his  father's  house  than 
was  ever  accorded  to  a  son  who  had  never  been 
a  profligate.  From  the  time  that  that  parable 
was  spoken,  down  to  the  present  hour,  there 
have  always  been  those  whose  sense  of  justice 
was  outraged  by  the  suggestion  that  a  rescued 
profligate  is  to  receive  higher  honor  in  God's 
presence  than  one  who  has  never  lapsed  from 


Is  There  Any  Real  Gain  In  Salvation?  97 

the  path  of  duty.  Yet  that  this  is  the  plain 
teaching  of  the  parable  as  it  stands,  and  in  the 
connection  of  its  presenting,  would  seem  to  be 
unmistakable. 

In  very  recent  days  a  distinguished  and  most 
excellent  clergyman  declared  in  public  comment 
on  this  parable,  ''For  myself  I  immensely  prefer 
the  non-prodigal  son,  and  so  did  the  father." 
Another  distinguished  clergyman  was  reported 
as  saying  publicly,  *'  I'm  with  the  elder  brother 
every  time."  These  clergymen  represent  a 
large  class  of  those  who,  in  the  modern  pulpit 
or  in  our  modern  community,  instinctively  re- 
coil from  some  aspects  of  the  gospel  of  salva- 
tion. And  this  fact  it  is  that  raises  the  emi- 
nently practical  and  most  important  question, 
Is  there  any  real  gain  in  salvation? 

Viewed  simply  as  a  matter  of  justice,  the  re- 
turned prodigal  was  not  treated  according  to 
his  deserts.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  how- 
ever, that  salvation  is  not  a  matter  of  justice, 
but  is  a  matter  of  grace ;  and  grace  abounds,  in 
God's  plan  of  salvation,  according  to  the  oppor- 
tunities for  its  exercise.  The  action  of  grace 
is,  therefore,  not  to  be  judged  by  the  claims  of 
bald  justice,  but  is  to  be  looked  at  as  an  expres- 
sion of  the  Divine  love  that  has  prompted  it. 
Justice  requires  that  "  whatsoever  a  man  sow- 


98  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

eth,  that  shall  he  also  reap  "  (Gal.  6:7).  When 
a  man  has  sinned,  justice  demands  his  punish- 
ment; but  grace  may  interpose  and  secure  his 
pardon.  It  may  even  be  true  that  "  where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceedingly  " 
(Rom.  5 :  20)  ;  and  that  added  prominence  comes 
in  consequence  to  him  who  is  the  greatest  tro- 
phy of  God's  grace  in  salvation.  All  this  is,  of 
course,  apart  from  any  question  as  to  the  phil- 
osophy of  the  plan  of  salvation,  or  the  rela- 
tions of  God's  action  to  principles  of  eternal 
justice.  Strictly  speaking,  salvation  is  clearly 
not  a  matter  of  justice,  but  is  a  matter  of  grace. 
Salvation  is  not,  however,  unjust  toward  any ; 
even  though  it  is  non-just — that  is,  not  pivoted 
on  justice  in  its  original  plan — toward  those  who 
are  saved. 

Take,  for  an  illustration  of  this  truth  in  an- 
other sphere,  the  workings  of  human  surgery. 
Surgery  is  not  a  normal  agency;  it  is  an  abnor- 
mal one.  Its  mission  is  to  rescue  from  death 
the  subjects  of  various  destructive  forces,  rather 
than  to  minister  to  those  who  have  never  re- 
ceived harm.  As  a  consequence  of  this  mission 
of  surgery,  a  skilful  surgeon  would  naturally 
have  more  rejoicing  over  his  success  in  behalf 
of  a  man  who  would  have  perished  miserably 
but  for  his  intervention,  than  he  could  have  over 


Is  There  Any  Real  Gain  In  Salvation?  99 

a  hundred  men  whose  condition  never  called 
for  his  aid.  When,  at  the  close  of  our  Civil 
War,  the  United  States  Government  would 
make  known  to  the  world  the  triumphs  of  its 
representative  surgeons  in  their  sphere,  it  issued 
a  volume  with  full-page  chromo-lithograph  por- 
traits of  men  who  had  been  successfully  oper- 
ated upon  after  injuries  that  had  left  them  mere 
physical  wrecks.  Every  man  in  that  roll  of 
honor  was  a  sadly  maimed  man ;  not  a  solitary 
unharmed  military  athlete  was  included  in  its 
numbers.  More  joy  seemed  to  be  shown  by 
the  Government  over  one  person  thus  rescued 
from  ruin  than  over  a  thousand  men  who  had 
never  responded  to  a  surgeon's  call.  Was  there 
any  injustice  in  this  proceeding?  Who  would 
claim  that  there  was? 

Could  it  be  said,  however,  that  this  added 
honor  put  by  the  Government  upon  the  success- 
fully treated  subjects  of  surgery  was  giving  a 
premium  to  physical  disability?  Would  any 
fair-minded  man  suppose  that  thereby  the 
United  States  surgeons  indicated  their  belief 
that  a  man  with  one  leg  was  better  off  than  a 
man  with  two,  or  that  he  who  had  lost  the  sight 
of  an  eye  and  the  hearing  of  an  ear  was  better 
fitted  for  the  ordinary  duties  of  life,  after  the 
war's  campaigning,  than  if  he  had  come  out  of 


100  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

the  war  unscathed?  No,  no!  It  is  not  the 
being  maimed  to  which  honor  is  here  given, 
but  it  is  the  being  successfully  treated  while  so 
fearfully  maimed.  So  in  the  realm  of  salva- 
tion; not  the  wretched  profligacy  of  the  prodi- 
gal son,  but  the  glorious  rescue  of  the  son  lost 
through  his  profligacy,  calls  for  the  honor  of 
the  best  robe,  the  signet  ring,  the  fatted  calf, 
and  the  household  rejoicings.  The  son  whose 
moral  nature  was  a  loser  by  his  excesses  must,  in 
some  sense,  remain  a  loser  permanently;  but  he 
will,  nevertheless,  have  special  honor  in  God's 
presence  as  a  miracle  of  grace  and  redeeming  love. 
It  is  because  so  many  fail  to  see  the  distinc- 
tion here  made  between  the  gain  of  salvation 
from  sin,  and  the  gain  of  being  a  sinner  as 
precedent  to  being  saved,  that  they  are  thought- 
lessly inclined  to  approve  the  course  and  the 
spirit  of  the  elder  brother  in  the  parable,  in  com- 
parison with  the  course  and  spirit  of  the 
younger  brother.  They  are  right  in  thinking 
that  the  elder  brother  did  better  than  the 
younger,  in  remaining  at  home  with  his  father 
instead  of  going  oflf  in  evil  courses.  They  are 
wrong  in  thinking  that  the  elder  brother  was 
in  any  sense  excusable  for  his  lack  of  rejoicing 
that  the  lost  was  saved,  and  that  his  father's 
heart  was  made  glad  again. 


Is  There  Any  Real  Gain  In  Salvation?  101 

Looked  at  in  the  light  of  the  duty  and  the 
privileges  of  love,  there  is  a  despicable  side  to 
the  character  of  that  elder  brother  in  the  para- 
ble of  the  Prodigal  Son,  with  his  cold-hearted, 
calculating,  selfishly  reputable  morality.  He  had 
remained  at  home,  it  is  true ;  but  it  was  his  home, 
and  he  was  the  gainer  by  remaining  in  it.  So  lit- 
tle, however,  did  he  have  of  sympathy  with  his 
father,  or  of  love  for  him,  during  all  his  life  at 
home,  that  when  he  found  that  that  poor  old 
father's  heavy  heart  had  been  made  glad  again 
by  the  return  of  a  mourned-for  son,  his  first  im- 
pulse was  to  jeer  at  his  father,  to  insult  his 
father,  to  traduce  his  father,  and  to  cause  his 
father  mental  anguish  by  his  baseless  and  selfish 
reproaches.  He  was  angry.  He  was  boastful. 
He  charged  his  father  with  injustice.  He  was 
unfilial  and  unfraternal,  and  every  way  unloving. 
But  his  good  father  loved  him  even  in  spite  of 
his  unloveliness ;  as  that  father  loved  the  other 
son  in  spite  of  his  waywardness. 

Salvation  is  of  love.  He  who  appreciates 
salvation  is  moved  by  love ;  and  he  who  is 
moved  by  love  appreciates  salvation.  He  who 
has  had  most  forgiven  loves  most.  The  re- 
turned prodigal  had  much  forgiven,  and  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  loved  much. 

The  elder  brother's  desire  was  not  salvation, 


102  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

but  'justice — in  spite  of  his  misconduct;  and 
love  seems  to  have  had  no  place  in  his  heart. 
If  he  had  rightly  appreciated  his  own  spirit  and 
his  own  lack,  he  might  have  said  as  to  himself 
when  he  had  finished  with  his  list  of  claimed 
good  qualities  and  deeds,  "  Yet  if,  in  addition 
to  all  this,  I  even  *  have  all  faith,  so  as  to  re- 
move mountains,  but  have  not  love,  I  am  noth- 
ing. And  if  I  bestow  all  my  goods  to  feed  the 
poor,  and  if  I  give  my  body  to  be  burned,  but 
have  not  love,  it  profiteth  me  nothing  '  "  ( i  Cor. 
13:  2,  3).  Do  we  always  realize  the  true  worth 
and  indispensableness  of  salvation  and  of  love? 
Let  us  see  to  it  that  the  elder  brother's  unlove- 
liness  is  not  ours  also. 


XII 

NOT  A  DUTY  TO  WORK  OUT 
ONL'5  SALVATION 

If  there  is  one  passage  in  the  Bible  that  is 
commonly,  and  perhaps  generally,  misunder- 
stood and  perverted,  and  supposed  to  teach  the 
very  opposite  of  what  it  means,  that  passage  is 
in  Paul's  letter  to  the  Philippians,  where  he 
says,  as  he  is  going  away  from  the  believers 
whom  he  loves,  "  Work  out  your  own  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling"  (Phil.  2:  12).  The 
common  idea  as  to  this  text  is  that  it  means 
that  the  sinner  has  a  share  in  the  work  of  secur- 
ing his  own  salvation.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
means  nothing  of  the  sort. 

Salvation  is  Christ's  work.  It  is  not  a  work 
that  is  partly  Christ's  and  partly  the  sinner's. 
He  who  begins  a  good  work  will  doubtless  finish 
it.  This  we  are  to  believe,  and  this  we  are  to 
teach.  Our  share  in  our  salvation  is  not  to  our 
credit,  but  to  the  added  credit  of  our  Saviour. 
A  New  England  boy,  who  was  brought  before 
the  church  authorities  as  an  applicant  for  ad- 
mission, had  the  right  idea  as  to  this,  although 
he  expressed  it  quaintly. 

103 


104  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

"Why  do  you  want  to  join  the  church?" 
asked  the  pastor. 

"  Because  I  want  to  show  that  I  am  a  saved 
sinner." 

"  Do  you  feel  that  you  are  saved  ?  " 

"Yes,  sir." 

"  Who  saved  you?  " 

"  It  was  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  my- 
self." 

"Of  yourself?  What  was  your  share  in  the 
work  of  your  salvation  ?  " 

"  I  resisted,  and  Jesus  Christ  did  the  rest." 

That  boy  understood  the  case  better  than  one 
who  thinks  that  he  has  a  part  of  his  own  salva- 
tion to  accomplish  by  personal  endeavor. 

Perhaps  the  term  "  work  out "  is,  in  a  meas- 
ure, responsible  for  the  popular  misconception 
of  Paul's  counsel  to  the  Philippians.  In  New 
England,  and  possibly  in  other  parts  of  the 
United  States,  "  work  out  "  has  a  technical,  or 
a  popular,  signification.  Highways  are  built 
and  kept  in  repair  by  the  public  for  the  public. 
Every  citizen,  especially  every  property-holder, 
has  to  pay  his  share  of  the  road-tax  in  his  vi- 
cinity. His  amount  of  tax  is  assessed  by  the 
selectmen,  or  the  supervisors,  as  they  are  called. 
This  includes  his  share,  to  be  paid  in  cash,  or  to 
be  "  worked  out  "  by  personal  labor.     A  large 


Not  a  Duty  to  Work  Out  One's  Salvation        105 

majority  of  citizens  in  New  England  "work 
out "  their  share  of  the  highway  tax  instead  of 
paying  it  in  cash.  In  consequence  of  this  the 
term  to  "  work  out "  is  understood  in  New 
England  to  mean  doing  one's  share  in  the  pay- 
ment of  government  taxes. 

But  Christ's  salvation  is  not  wrought  for 
sinners  on  the  plan  of  New  England  road-mak- 
ing. He  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners, 
not  to  help  sinners  save  themselves  or  work  out 
their  own  salvation. 

If,  however,  the  injunction  to  work  out  one's 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  does  not 
mean  that  there  is  any  part  of  one's  salvation 
to  be  worked  out,  or  to  be  wrought  by  one's 
self,  what  does  the  Bible  injunction  mean?  This 
will  be  asked  by  many  a  reader,  and  not  unnat- 
urally. 

The  plain  answer  to  this  question  will  be 
found  in  the  context  of  the  passage  in  question, 
if  one  will  but  read  it  attentively. 

Paul  is  writing,  not  to  outside,  or  unsaved, 
sinners  in  Philippi,  but  to  disciples  of  Christ 
who  are  saved  by  him,  and  who  are  sharers  of 
his  life.  He  is  not  teUing  unsaved  sinners  how 
to  be  saved,  but  he  is  telling  saved  sinners  what 
to  do  with  their  salvation,  and  how  to  make  it 
tell  for  their   Saviour's  glory,  and  in  the  dis- 


106  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

charge  of  their  obvious  duty  toward  him  and 
toward  those  whom  he  loves. 

"  Have  this  mind  in  you,"  Paul  says,  "  which 
was  also  in  Christ  Jesus"  (Phil.  2:  5).  And 
he  reminds  them  what  were  the  mind  and  spirit 
of  Christ  which  he  commends  to  them  as  an 
example.  Paul  is  going  away,  and  he  wants 
the  Philippian  disciples  to  bear  faithful  witness 
to  Christ,  in  the  absence  from  them  of  their 
loving  human  teacher.  "  So  then,  my  beloved, 
even  as  ye  have  always  obeyed,  not  as  in  my 
presence  only,  but  now  much  more  in  my  ab- 
sence, work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear 
and  trembling;  for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in 
you  both  to  will  and  to  work,  for  his  good 
pleasure"    (Phil.  2:   12,   13). 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  word  "  out- 
work "  would  give  an  idea  of  the  meaning-  of 
Paul's  injunction  "  work  out."  You  have  ob- 
tained salvation  wholly  from  God,  now  let  it 
appear ;  "  outwork  your  salvation,"  so  that 
others  may  see  what  it  is.  Again,  it  is  as 
though  Paul  had  said,  "  manifest  your  salva- 
tion ;  "  "  evidence  your  salvation  ;  "  "  bring  up 
your  salvation  from  below  the  surface,  so  that 
it  may  be  seen  and  felt  by  those  who  see  you, 
and  feel  you,  and  know  you  and  your  joy  and 
your  faith." 


Not  a  Duly  to  Work  Out  One's  Salvation        107 

Paul's  counsel  to  the  Philippian  believers  is 
counsel  also  for  us  and  for  all.  It  is  not  a 
suggestion  that  Christ  is  unable  to  compass 
more  than  a  part  of  the  sinner's  salvation.  It  is 
a  suggestion  that,  Christ  having  v^^rought  our 
full  salvation,  and  having  wrought  it  without 
our  aid,  we  certainly  owe  it  to  him  and  to  others 
whom  he  has  saved,  or  whom  he  is  ready  to 
save,  to  work  out  from  ourselves  the  salvation 
that  we  rejoice  in,  and  which  Christ  is  ever 
glad  to  give  to  others  fully  and  freely. 


XIII 
SANCTIFICATION,  NOT  "5ANCTIFICATION" 

"  Sanctification  "  is  a  Bible  word,  and  again 
it  is  a  theological  word.  It  has  two  different 
meanings  in  these  two  spheres.  Each  meaning 
is  distinct  and  well  defined,  and  important  by 
itself ;  but  the  one  meaning  ought  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  other,  as  too  commonly  it  is. 
Trouble  comes  from  supposing  that  the  word 
means  the  same  thing  in  both  cases. 

According  to  the  Bible,  "  sanctification "  is 
the  being  devoted  to  a  sacred  use  or  purpose; 
the  being  set  apart  to  a  holy  service;  the  being 
consecrated  to  God  or  to  God's  cause.  Accord- 
ing to  common  theological  teachings  or  termi- 
nology, "  sanctification  "  is  a  process  by  which 
one  makes  attainment  in  godliness,  and  ad- 
vances toward  purity  of  Hfe  and  being;  or, 
again,  it  is  a  state  or  attainment  as  a  result  of 
processes  and  progress.  In  the  one  case,  "sanc- 
tification "  is  the  immediate  act  of  an  individual 
for  himself,  or  it  is  the  immediate  result  of  the 
act  of  another  in  or  for  him.  In  the  other  case, 
"  sanctification  "  is  not  compassed  all  at  once, 
at  the  beginning,  by  the  action  of  one's  self  or 

108 


Sanctification,  Not  "  Sanctif ication  "  109 

of  another,  but  it  is  a  movement  toward  a  de- 
sired state,  or  the  final  state  itself,  not  to  be 
reached  except  by  continued  processes  with  re- 
sultant progress. 

In  Bible  usage,  he  who  sets  himself  apart  to 
God's  service,  or  whom  God  sets  apart  to  him- 
self, is  a  sanctified  man.  He  is  the  Lord's  now, 
and  he  has  a  call  to  count  himself  wholly  the 
Lord's  sanctified  one.  His  sanctification  is  in 
the  act  or  fact  of  his  setting  himself  apart,  or 
of  his  being  set  apart.  His  progress  as  a  sanc- 
tified man  is  his  progress  from  the  point  of  his 
being  definitely  sanctified.  Whatever  gain  comes 
to  him  in  God's  service  is  his  gain  as  an  already 
sanctified  man,  not  his  gain  toward  fuller  sanc- 
tification. But  in  theological  parlance,  sancti- 
fication, or  "  progressive  sanctification,"  is  a 
gradual  process  by  which  one  who  is  not  yet 
wholly  sanctified  makes  attainment  toward  that 
state.  In  the  one  case,  sanctification  is  counted 
the  true  beginning  of  right  Christian  service ; 
and,  in  the  other  case,  it  is  an  end  in,  or  a  de- 
sired result  of,  such  service. 

God's  repeated  commands  to  his  special  serv- 
ants, or  his  deputed  representatives,  were  to 
sanctify  others  to  his  service  by  formal  acts  of 
consecration  and  cleansing.  "  Sanctify  unto  me 
all  the  first-born,"  he  said  to  Moses  in  Egypt 


110  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

(Exod.  13:  2).  "Jehovah  said  unto  Moses/ 
at  Sinai,  "  Go  unto  the  people,  and  sanct:f\ 
them  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  let  them  wash 
their  garments,  and  be  ready  against  the  third 
day"  (Exod.  19:  10,  11).  "And  Moses  went 
down  from  the  mount  unto  the  people  and  sanc- 
tified the  people;  and  they  washed  their  gar- 
ments" (Exod.  19:  14).  When  Aaron  and  his 
sons  were  set  apart  for  the  priesthood,  God's 
command  to  Moses  was,  "  Anoint  them,  and 
consecrate  them,  and  sanctify  them,  that  they 
may  minister  unto  me  in  the  priest's  office " 
(Exod.  28:  41).  "And  Moses  took  of  the 
anointing  oil,  and  of  the  blood  which  was  upon 
the  altar,  and  sprinkled  it  upon  Aaron,  upon 
his  garments,  and  upon  his  sons,  and  upon  his 
sons'  garments  with  him ;  and  sanctified  Aaron, 
his  garments,  and  his  sons,  and  his  sons'  gar- 
ments with  him"  (Lev.  8:  30).  Joshua's  com- 
mand from  God  was,  "  Up,  sanctify  the  people  " 
(Josh.  7:  13).  God  said  to  Joel:  "Sanctify  a 
fast,  call  a  solemn  assembly:  gather  the  people, 
sanctify  the  assembly"  (Joel  2:  15,  16). 
And  so  again  and  again  in  the  Bible  record. 

Frequently  the  people  of  God  were  com- 
manded to  sanctify  themselves.  "  Sanctify  your- 
selves therefore,  and  be  ye  holy"  (Lev.  20:  7), 
said  the  Lord  to  Moses  concerning  the  Israel- 


Sanctification,  Not  "  Sanctification  "  111 

ites.  "  Sanctify  yourselves  against  to-morrow  " 
(Num.  II :  i8),  was  God's  command  in  the 
wilderness.  At  the  Jordan,  Joshua's  word  was, 
"  Sanctify  yourselves ;  for  to-morrow  the  Lord 
will  do  wonders  among  you"  (Josh.  3;  5). 
Samuel  said  to  the  elders  of  Bethlehem,  "  Sanc- 
tify yourselves,  and  come  with  me  to  the  sacri- 
fice "  (i  Sam.  16:  5).  David  commanded  the 
priests  and  Levites  at  Jerusalem :  ''  Sanctify 
yourselves,  both  ye  and  your  brethren,  that  ye 
may  bring  up  the  ark  of  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
Israel.  ...  So  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
sanctified  themselves  to  bring  up  the  ark  of 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel"  (i  Chron.  15: 
12,  14).  This  idea  is  often  repeated  in  the  Old 
Testament  story. 

Things,  as  well  as  persons,  were  sanctified  by 
a  specific  dedication,  or  a  formal  act,  according 
to  the  Old  Testament  text.  The  seventh  day 
was  sanctified,  or  made  holy,  as  a  rest  day  to 
the  Lord,  from  the  creation.  The  same  He- 
brew word  means  both  "  made  holy  "  and  "  sanc- 
tified," and  is  thus  interchangeably  translated. 
(Gen.  2:3;  Deut.  5:  12;  Neh.  13:  22,  etc., 
revised  text.)  Mt.  Sinai  (Exod.  19:  23);  the 
tabernacle,  its  altar,  its  vessels,  and  its  instru- 
ments (Exod.  29:  43,  44;  40:  11;  Num.  7:1); 
the   offerings    (Exod.  29:  27);  the  temple    (2 


112  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Chron.  29:  5)  ;  a  city  gate  (Neh.  3:1);  houses, 
fields  (Lev.  2']'.  14-22),  and  other  possessions, 
were  thus  consecrated,  sanctified,  dedicated,  or 
renewedly  fitted  for  God's  acceptance. 

Even  God  himself  speaks  of  being  sanctified, 
and  is  spoken  of  by  others  as  thus  being  held 
sacred.  The  Lord  "  was  sanctified,"  or  "  showed 
himself  holy "  at  "  the  waters  of  Meribah  "  in 
Kadesh-barnea  (Num.  20:  13;  Deut.  32:  51). 
He  said  to  his  people  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 
"  I  will  be  sanctified  in  you  in  the  sight  of  the 
nations"  (Ezek.  20:  41);  and  again,  "I  will 
sanctify  my  great  name,  which  hath  been  pro- 
faned among  the  nations"  (Ezek.  36:  23).  And 
thus  over  and  over  again. 

There  is  no  room  for  question  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  "  sanctifying  "  in  the  Old  Testament.  Not 
a  single  passage  in  that  portion  of  the  Bible 
suggests  the  idea  of  a  gradual  and  progressive 
work.  In  every  instance  it  has  reference  to  an 
immediate  purposeful  dedication,  a  deliberate 
setting  apart,  a  formal  devoting  to  God,  of  one's 
self  or  of  another  or  of  a  particular  thing.  It 
corresponds  with  the  idea  of  counting  holy.  It 
is  not  consistent  with  the  thought  of  a  mere 
entering  upon  a  process  of  growth  in  grace  and 
godliness.  And  as  it  is  in  the  Old  Testament, 
so  it  is  in  the  New. 


Sanctification,  Not  "  5anctification  "  113 

The  Greek  word  hagiazo  ("  to  sanctify,"  or, 
"  to  set  apart ")  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew 
qadesh  ("  to  count  holy,"  "  to  devote,"  "  to 
sanctify").  The  Septuagint  recognizes  this  in 
all  its  translations.  Our  English  version,  espe- 
cially in  its  revision,  is  conformed  to  this  idea. 
Jesus  suggests  that  it  is  "  the  altar  that  sancti- 
fieth  the  gift"  (Matt.  23:  19).  A  gift  laid  on 
the  altar  is  thereby  devoted,  or  made  holy.  Paul 
declares  that  if  an  unbelieving  husband  is  mar- 
ried to  a  believing  wife,  "  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  in  the  wife,"  so  that  their  chil- 
dren can  be  counted  "holy"  (i  Cor.  7:  14). 
If  the  wife  be  devoted  to  God,  her  husband  and 
children  are  counted  as  included  in  the  dedica- 
tion. Again,  Paul  suggests  that  meats  not 
ceremonially  clean  may  be  eaten  by  a  believer: 
**  For  every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and  noth- 
ing is  to  be  rejected,  if  it  be  received  with 
thanksgiving:  for  it  is  sanctified  through  the 
word  of  God  and  prayer"  (i  Tim.  4:  4,  5). 

The  writer  of  Hebrews  says  emphatically, 
"  Both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they  that  are  sanc- 
tified are  all  of  one :  for  which  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren"  (Heb.  2:  11). 
That  is,  as  the  context  shows,  our  Saviour,  hav- 
ing been  himself  in  subjection  while  in  the  flesh, 


114  Our  Misunderstood  Tible 

was  devoted  to  God,  and  now  he  counts  those 
also  who  devote  themselves  to  God  as  one  with 
himself.  This  idea  is  in  accordance  with  the 
prayer  of  Jesus  for  his  disciples  on  the  night 
of  his  betrayal :  "  Sanctify  them  in  the  truth : 
thy  word  is  truth.  .  .  .  For  their  sakes  I 
sanctify  myself,  that  they  themselves  also  may 
be  sanctified  in  truth"  (John  17:  17-19).  Jesus, 
while  in  the  flesh,  is  sanctified  or  consecrated  in 
the  service  of  his  Father,  and  he  wants  his  dis- 
ciples to  be  thus  sanctified  or  devoted  within  the 
limits,  or  according  to  the  teachings  of,  the  truth 
as  found  in  God's  Word.  Again,  the  writer  of 
Hebrews  speaks  of  that  "  sanctification  [or,  holi- 
ness] without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  " 
(Heb.  12:  14).  Of  course,  one  who  refrains 
from  giving,  or  devoting,  himself  wholly  to 
God,  cannot  be  accepted  of  God.  Entire  sur- 
render and  entire  consecration  are  the  only 
terms  on  which  any  person  can  enter  or  con- 
tinue in  the  active  service  of  God. 

A  passage  that  has  been  seized  upon  by  those 
who  think  that  the  Bible  counts  personal  sanc- 
tification a  gradual  and  progressive  work,  or  a 
final  attainment  as  following  certain  processes, 
is  the  prayer  of  Paul  for  the  Thessalonians : 
"  The  God  of  peace  himself  sanctify  you  wholly ; 
and  may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  pre- 


Sanctification,  Not  "  Sanctification  "  115 

served  entire,  without  blame  at  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (i  Thess.  5:  23).  But 
the  evident  thought  of  Paul  is,  not  that  the 
Thessalonians  should  be  sanctified  by  piecemeal, 
one  portion  at  a  time,  or  come  finally  to  a  state 
or  attainment,  but  that  they  should  make  thor- 
ough work  of  it  from  the  start,  giving  to  God, 
as  God  seeks  it,  their  entire  selves,  holding  noth- 
ing back  from  the  consecration. 

A  Connecticut  farmer  came  to  a  well-known 
clergyman,  saying  that  the  people  in  his  neigh- 
borhood had  built  a  new  meeting-house,  and  that 
they  wanted  this  clergyman  to  come  and 
dedicate  it.  The  clergyman,  accustomed  to 
participate  in  dedicatory  services  where  different 
clergymen  took  different  parts  of  the  service, 
inquired : 

"  What  part  do  you  want  me  to  take  in  the 
dedication  ?  " 

The  farmer,  thinking  that  this  question  ap- 
plied to  the  part  of  the  building  to  be  included 
in  the  dedication,  replied : 

"  Why,  the  whole  thing !  Take  it  all  in,  from 
underpinning  to  steeple." 

That  man  wanted  the  building  to  be  wholly 
sanctified  as  a  temple  of  God,  and  that  all  at 
once.  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  a  temple  of 
God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ? 


116  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

.  .  .  The  temple  of  God  is  holy,  and  such 
are  ye  "  (i  Cor.  3:  16,  17). 

Another  passage  thought  by  some  to  indicate 
the  idea  of  a  gradual  process  in  the  work  of 
sanctification  is  Ephesians  5 :  25-27,  where 
Paul  likens  Christ's  love  for  his  church  to  a 
true  husband's  love  for  his  wife :  "  Husbands, 
love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the 
church,  and  gave  himself  up  for  it;  that  he 
might  sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the 
washing  of  the  water  with  the  word,  that  he 
might  present  the  church  to  himself  a  glorious 
church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such 
thing;  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish." 

But  a  true  husband  does  not  love  his  wife  or 
take  her  as  his  wife  by  a  gradual  process.  He 
pledges  his  love  at  once  and  for  always  at  the 
time  he  takes  her  as  his  wife,  and  gives  himseff 
as  her  husband.  Jesus  Christ  gave  himself  up 
for  his  church  in  one  offering,  to  sanctify  or 
consecrate  or  hallow  that  church.  He  wants 
that  church  to  be  wholly  clean,  holy,  and  without 
blemish.  His  act  of  sanctifying  his  church  by 
his  blood  was  a  complete  act  in  its  first  perform- 
ance. The  individual  members  of  that  wholly 
sanctified  church  ought  to  grow  in  grace  toward 
perfect  holiness. 


Sanctification,  Not  "  Sanctification  "  117 

It  can  be  affirmed  positively  that  there  is  not 
a  single  text  in  the  New  Testament,  any  more 
than  in  the  Old,  which  justifies  the  claim  that 
"  sanctification,"  as  the  word  is  employed  in  the 
Bible,  applies  to  a  gradual  purifying  and  uplift- 
ing of  the  inner  being.  It  always  refers  to  an 
immediate  and  formal  act  of  consecration  or 
devotion,  complete  from  the  beginning.  Thus 
far  as  to  the  Bible  term  "  sanctification,"  or  ''  to 
sanctify." 

As  to  the  theological  term  "  sanctification," — 
that  term  refers  to  a  process  that  is  clearly 
recognized  in  the  Bible,  under  the  term  "  growth 
in  grace."  Growth  in  grace  is  the  duty  and  priv- 
ilege of  the  Christian  believer.  "  Grow  in  the 
grace  and  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ"  (2  Pet.  3:  18),  says  the  Apostle. 
And  again,  "  Grow  up  in  all  things  into  him, 
who  is  the  head,  even  Christ"  (Eph.  4:  15). 
And  so  at  many  another  point  in  the  Bible  teach- 
ings. He  who  is  wholly  sanctified  has  a  duty  to 
grow  in  grace  continually. 

The  only  trouble  is  that  the  word  "  sanctifica- 
tion," in  all  its  variant  forms  in  the  Bible,  means 
one  thing,  while  the  word  "  sanctification  "  as 
used  in  theological  discussions,  and  in  popular 
speech  about  the  Christian  life,  means  quite  an- 
other thing.     Each  English  word  has  its  own 


118  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

meaning,  and  represents  a  Bible  truth,  if  only 
the  word  be  recognized  as  a  different  word 
from  the  other ;  but  when  the  one  word  is  taken 
as  meaning  the  same  as  the  other,  there  is  end- 
less confusion  in  consequence. 

During  war  time  the  writer  heard  an  illiterate 
and  warm-hearted  colored  preacher  at  New 
Berne,  North  Carolina,  preach  from  the  text 
"  Lo,  I  come."     He  began  his  sermon  thus : 

"  D'ye  har  dat,  bredren  ?  '  Low  I  come,'  not 
*  High  I  come.'  De  Lord  Jesus  comes  to  de 
poor  and  de  lowly." 

That  was  good  gospel,  but  poor  exegesis.  The 
idea  was  all  right,  but  the  preacher  had  the 
wrong  word  to  base  it  on.  It  is  much  the  same 
with  any  one  who  supposes  that  the  Bible  word 
"  sanctification "  teaches  the  Bible  truth  of 
growth  in  grace  and  godhness. 


XIV 

PURITY  OF  HEART  NOT  A  STATE 
OF  5INLE55NE55 

One  of  the  beatitudes  that  is  least  understood, 
and  that  as  it  stands  seems  most  difficult  of 
realization,  is  that  which  pivots  a  clear  concep- 
tion of  God,  or  an  actual  sight  of  God,  on  abso- 
lute purity  of  heart.  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in 
heart:  for  they  shall  see  God"  (Matt.  5:8). 
If  that  means  that  only  those  who  are  sinless, 
stainless,  morally  pure — free  from  moral  imper- 
fection, not  merely  in  act  and  in  word,  but  in  very 
thought  and  desire — can  see  or  perceive  God, 
then  indeed  it  shuts  out  every  human  being  from 
the  possibility  of  such  an  attainment.  Yet  the 
place  of  this  beatitude  in  the  teachings  of  our 
Lord  forbids  the  supposition  that  in  its  utter- 
ance, to  those  who  were  listeners  to  his  teach- 
ings on  the  Mount,  he  was  deliberately  closing 
the  doors  to  all  against  the  longed-for  percep- 
tion of  God.  Hence  it  follows  that  these  words 
cannot  mean  what  their  bald  literalness  in  our 
English  translation  would  seem  to  indicate ;  and 
that  we  would  do  well  to  ascertain  what  they 
do  mean. 

119 


120  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Three  words  in  that  beatitude  liable  to  be  mis- 
understood, and  so  to  be  misleading  to  the  ordi- 
nary English  reader,  are  "  heart,"  "  pure  "  and 
"  see."  Each  one  of  these  words  is  worth  con- 
sidering by  itself,  as  a  help  to  the  understand- 
ing of  the  beatitude  in  its  entirety. 

The  word  '*  heart "  is  now  used  as  a  synonym 
of  the  feelings  or  emotions  or  affections,  as  over 
against  the  "  head  "  or  *'  brain  "  as  a  synonym 
of  the  mind  or  intellect.  We  speak  of  a  man 
of  good  impulses,  but  of  bad  judgment  as  one 
*'  whose  heart  is  right,  but  whose  head  is 
wrong."  But  the  ancients  had  another  mode  of 
anatomical  symbolism.  They  located  the  mind 
in  the  heart,  and  the  affections  in  the  stomach  or 
bowels.  In  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New  the  term  "  heart "  usually  corresponds 
with  our  term  "  mind,"  and  the  term  "  belly," 
or  "  bowels,"  with  our  term  "  affections." 
"Heart"  in  those  days,  like  "mind"  at  the 
present  time,  could  include  the  idea  of  the  whole 
man ;  as  a  man  who  has  set  his  heart  to  a  work, 
or  who  is  whole-minded  to  that  work.  The  same 
Hebrew  word  is,  indeed,  frequently  translated 
in  our  English  Bible  both  "  mind  "  and  "  heart." 
Again  the  Greek  word  rendered  "  mind  "  in  the 
New  Testament  refers  rather  to  the  purpose 
and  will  than  to  the  intellect  and  understanding. 


Purity  of  Heart  Not  a  State  of  5inlessness         121 

But  in  the  nicer  distinctions  of  these  anatomical 
figures  of  speech  of  the  ancients  the  **  heart " 
of  then  stood  for  the  "  mind  "  of  now,  and  the 
"  bowels  "  of  then  for  the  "  heart  "  of  now.  In 
the  "  heart,"  or  the  mind,  man  thinketh,  before 
his  thought  takes  representative  shape  in  action. 
With  the  '*  heart,"  or  the  mind,  man  believeth, 
before  his  mouth  makes  confession  of  his  belief. 
He  is  swayed  by  **  bowels  "  or  feelings  of  mercy 
or  of  compassion,  and  out  of  his  "  belly  "  (or, 
as  we  would  say,  heart)  there  go  forth  streams 
of  love  in  feelings  of  affection  for  those  who 
are  in  need.  This  is  the  way  in  which  the  Bible 
uses  the  term  "  heart ;"  therefore  in  the  beati- 
tudes, as  elsewhere,  "  heart "  means,  according 
to  our  way  of  speaking,  mind,  or  purpose,  and 
not  heart. 

The  word  "  pure,"  as  ordinarily  used,  in  He- 
brew, in  Greek,  and  in  English,  means  '*  without 
alloy,"  "  clean,"  "  clear,"  "simple,"  "  single."  It 
is  applied,  in  the  Bible,  to  virgin  gold,  to  a  clean 
table  or  candlestick,  to  flawless  glass,  to  un- 
mixed oil,  and  to  water  that  is  only  water.  It 
does  not  necessarily  involve  a  moral  element. 
It  never  stands  for  absolute  sinlessness  of  being. 
Hence  it  is  to  be  taken,  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  when  connected 
with  ''  heart,"  or  "  mind,"  as  meaning  "  single," 


122  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

''simple,"  "unmixed."  The  "pure  in  heart" 
are  those  whose  minds,  or  very  selves,  are  sin- 
gle, simple,  undivided  and  unalloyed  in  one  aim 
and  purpose. 

In  Bible  usage,  as  in  our  ordinary  modes  of 
speech,  to  "  see  "  is  not  merely  to  have  in  the 
field  of  natural  vision,  but  is  to  discern,  or  per- 
ceive, or  recognize,  or  apprehend.  To  say  "  I 
see  "  is  a  familiar  and  intelligible  form  of  ex- 
pression by  the  blind,  when  a  thought  or  a  truth 
is  made  clear  through  the  mind's  eye.  We  see 
a  great  many  things  that  we  do  not  see.  We 
can  see  much  that  we  cannot  see.  "  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time  "  (John  i :  i8)  ;  yet 
it  is  the  privilege  and  the  duty  of  every  child 
of  God  to  walk  as  Moses  walked,  "as  seeing 
him  who  is  invisible  "  (Heb.  ii :  27). 

In  the  light  of  Bible  usage,  therefore,  the 
words  of  this  beatitude  might  be  rendered: 
"  Blessed  are  the  single-minded,  or  single- 
purposed  :  for  they  shall  perceive  God."  Blessed 
are  those  whose  whole  being  is  intent  on  seeing 
him  who  is  invisible;  blessed  are  those 
who  look  toward  God  all  the  time,  and  who  will 
not  be  diverted  from  that  looking;  blessed  are 
those  who  live  to  see  God: — for  they  shall  see 
him.  Thus  rendered,  this  beatitude  is  consistent 
with  all  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 


Purity  of  Heart  Not  a  state  of  5inlessness         123 

apostles,  as  well  as  with  all  the  great  truths  in 
the  kingdoms  of  nature  and  of  grace.  It  is  in 
this  very  Sermon  on  the  Mount  that  our  Lord 
says  to  his  disciples :  **  The  lamp  of  the  body 
is  the  eye:  if  therefore  thine  eye  be  single  [sim- 
ple, clear,  unblurred],  thy  whole  body  shall  be 
full  of  light"  (Matt.  6:  22)  ;  and  in  immediate 
connection  with  this  declaration,  as  if  in  appli- 
cation of  its  truth,  he  says :  "  No  man  can  serve 
two  masters :  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one,  and 
love  the  other;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  one, 
and  despise  the  other"  (Matt.  6:  24).  The 
eye  that  would  see  the  right  master  must  be  sin- 
gle, clear,  pure ;  for  no  man  can  see  the  master 
whom  he  ought  to  serve  if  he  is  looking,  or 
trying  to  look,  in  two  directions.  Such  a  serv- 
ant is  described  by  the  apostle  James  as  "  a 
double-minded  man,  unstable  in  all  his  ways  " 
(Jas.  1:8). 

Single-mindedness,  or  simple-mindedness,  is 
a  characteristic  of  childhood.  A  child  is  all  at- 
tent  to  one  thing  at  a  time,  looking  at  that  one 
thing  with  single  eye  and  simpleness  of  mind ; 
while  double-mindedness,  or  divided  thinking,  is 
the  peril  of  the  full-grown  person.  How  many 
things  a  keen-eyed  child  will  see  in  an  everyday 
walk  that  are  unnoticed  by  the  father  whom  he 
accompanies!     The  father  has  too  many  things 


124  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

in  his  mind,  or  on  his  mind,  to  observe  that 
which,  for  the  moment,  is  the  all  in  all  to  the 
single-eyed  and  simple-minded — or,  as  the  Bible 
would  call  it,  the  pure-hearted — child.  There- 
fore it  is  that  our  Lord  said  to  his  maturer  dis- 
ciples :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
he  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein"  (Luke  i8: 
17).  The  pure  in  heart  are  the  child-minded. 
They  shall  see  God,  because  when  they  are  look- 
ing for  him  they  are  not  looking  for  anything 
else.  Their  eyes  are  single,  their  minds  are 
undivided,  and  their  whole  being  goes  out 
toward  the  object  of  their  search.  They  seek 
for  God,  and  they  find  him  when  they  search  for 
him  with  all  their  mind. 

He  who  has  his  mind,  or  purpose,  his  thoughts, 
his  desires,  his  whole  being,  clarified  and  unal- 
loyed, fixed  and  centered  on  God,  longing  to 
perceive  him,  to  be  in  communion  with  him,  to 
be  a  partaker  of  his  spirit  and  his  life,  shall  find 
him,  and  shall  know  that  he  is  one  with  him. 
He  is  one  of  the  pure  in  heart,  of  the  single-eyed 
and  the  simple-minded,  who  shall  perceive  God 
clearly,  and  in  consequence  be  blessed  or  happy 
continually. 


XV 

BIBLL  PLRFLCTION  NOT  5INLE55NL5S 

Over  against  the  promised  blessing  to  the 
"  pure  in  heart  "  there  stands  the  command  of 
Jesus  to  his  disciples,  "  Be  ye  therefore  perfect, 
even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  per- 
fect"  (Matt.  5:  48)  ;  or,  as  it  reads  in  the  Re- 
vised text,  "  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as 
your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect."  As  this  is 
popularly  understood,  and  frequently  preached 
about,  it  is  a  command  to  sinlessness,  or  to 
moral  faultlessness,  a  command  to  be  free  from 
spot  or  stain  or  taint  of  evil,  to  be  like  God  in 
holiness  and  purity;  and  many  of  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  say  of  this  requirement,  as  others  said 
of  his  call  to  oneness  with  himself  by  partak- 
ing of  his  flesh  and  his  blood,  "  This  is  a  hard 
saying;  who  can  hear  it?"   (John  6:  60.) 

Others,  again,  console  themselves  with  the 
belief  that,  as  Jesus  would  not  command  the 
impossible,  they  can  be  sinless  to  the  extent  re- 
quired in  this  injunction;  and  therefore  they 
strive  to  that  end,  and,  indeed,  think  they  attain 
to  it.  Thus  the  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the 
meaning  of  this  command  lead  many,  on  the 

125 


126  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

one  hand,  to  hopeless  striving  after  moral  per- 
fectness,  and  to  doubt  or  despair  in  view  of  their 
obvious  failure ;  and  lead  many,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  self-deception  and  a  wrong  estimate  of 
their  moral  conduct  and  spiritual  condition. 
Both  these  undesirable  states  of  mind  are  a 
result  of  a  too  common  misunderstanding  of  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  term  '*  perfect,"  as  it  stands 
in  that  command  of  Jesus. 

The  word  "  perfect,"  or  "  perfection,"  or 
"  perfectly,"  as  found  in  our  English  Bible, 
never  means  a  mere  state  of  sinlessness.  It  has, 
indeed,  no  exclusive  reference  to  moral 
qualities  or  to  a  moral  condition.  Its 
meaning  is  rather  a  state  of  complete- 
ness, of  wholeness,  of  entirety.  Several  He- 
brew and  several  Greek  words  are  thus  trans- 
lated, but  all  of  them  have  practically  the  same 
root  idea.  The  command  to  the  Israelites  to 
have  "  a  perfect  and  just  weight,"  and  "  a  per- 
fect and  just  measure"  (Deut.  25:  15),  had 
reference  only  to  the  material  substance  of  the 
weight  and  measure.  The  host  of  David*s  sol- 
diers who  came  with  him  to  Hebron  "  with  a 
perfect  heart"  (i  Chron.  12:  38)  were  not  sin- 
less men,  but  "  whole-hearted  "  retainers  of  the 
new  ruler.  When  it  was  said  of  Tyre,  "  Thou 
wast  perfect  in  thy  ways  from  the  day  that  thou 


Bible  Perfection  Not  5inlessness  127 

wast  created,  till  unrighteousness  was  found  in 
thee"  (Ezek.  28:  15),  it  is  clear  that  symmetry 
and  entirety  are  included  in  the  idea  of  perfect- 
ness,  rather  than  sinlessness  or  moral  purity. 
So  all  the  way  along  the  Old  Testament  record. 

When  Jesus  said  to  the  rich  young  man  who 
wanted  to  know  how  to  make  sure  of  eternal 
life,  "  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  go,  sell  that 
which  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou 
shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven ;  and  come,  follow 
me"  (Matt.  19:  21),  he  clearly  meant,  "if  thou 
wouldest  complete  thy  work  of  preparation,  if 
thou  wouldest  be  thorough  in  this  thing."  And 
when  James  says  that  the  man  who  can  control 
his  tongue  "  is  a  perfect  man,  able  to  bridle 
the  whole  body  also  "  (James  3  :  2),  he  evidently 
uses  the  word  "  perfect "  as  meaning  **  thor- 
ough," "  entire,"  "  complete."  Thus  in  the  New 
Testament  as  in  the  Old. 

An  examination  of  the  context  of  the  com- 
mand to  "  be  perfect,"  in  the  "  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,"  will  show  to  any  careful  reader  that  it 
is  impartiality,  or  freedom  from  the  imperfect- 
ness  of  a  one-sided  view  of  truth  or  duty, 
rather  than  sinlessness,  that  is  enjoined  by 
Jesus.  He  is  speaking  of  the  common  way  of 
loving  your  friends  and  hating  your  enemies. 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said,"  he  says. 


128  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine 
enemy :  but  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies, 
and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you;  that  ye 
may  be  sons  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven ; 
for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and 
the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust.  For  if  ye  love  them  that  love  you,  v^hat 
reward  have  ye?  Do  not  even  the  publicans 
the  same  ?  And  if  ye  salute  your  brethren  only, 
what  do  ye  more  than  others?  do  not  even  the 
Gentiles  the  same?  Ye  therefore  shall  be  per- 
fect, as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect"  (Matt. 

5-  43-48). 

It  is  one-sidedness  that  is  warned  against.  It 
is  impartiahty  or  entirety  that  is  enjoined.  It 
is  wholeness  of  vision,  instead  of  a  squint  of 
the  eye,  that  is  commended.  Gentiles  and  pub- 
licans and  other  sinners  may  be  good  to  those 
whom  they  like,  and  be  unloving  toward  others ; 
but  the  disciples  of  Jesus  are  to  be  loving  toward 
all,  as  the  Father  of  all  is  loving  toward  all. 
This  is  the  plain  command  of  Jesus  in  the  words, 
"  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heav- 
enly Father  is  perfect."  He  says  practically: 
"  Be  impartial,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  im- 
partial. Avoid  one-sidedness.  Let  your  love 
and  fairness  take  in  the  entire  sweep  of  the 
circle." 


Bible  Perfection  Not  Sinlessness  129 

There  are  many  Bible  calls  to  holiness,  to 
godliness,  to  purity  of  thought,  but  that  idea  is 
not  found  in  this  Bible  word  "perfect/'  The 
supposing  that  the  command  to  preach  perfec- 
tion, or  to  press  toward  it,  is  a  command  to  a 
sinless  life,  is  a  mistake  that  has  caused  no  little 
confusion  and  misunderstanding  in  the  minds 
of  simple-hearted  believers.  The  conventional 
term  "perfection,"  and  the  Bible  term  "perfec- 
tion," are  two  terms  of  very  different  meaning. 


XVI 

DENYING  5LLF,  NOT  DENYING 
THINGS  TO  5LLF 

To  deny  one's  self  is  a  fundamental  Christian 
duty.  To  deny  anything  to  one's  self  may  be 
a  duty  or  it  may  not  be ;  it  may  be  right  or 
it  may  be  wrong:  all  depends  on  the  circum- 
stances and  nature  of  such  denial,  and  the  object 
of  its  exercise.  Yet  both  denying  self  and  deny- 
ing to  self  are  popularly  spoken  of  as  "  self- 
denial  ;"  and  under  this  term  both  the  biblical 
and  the  unbiblical  ideas  of  denying  self  are  gen- 
erally included.  An  all-essential  duty  in  Chris- 
tian discipleship  is  thus  commonly  confounded 
with  a  matter  of  conditional  expediency. 

"  If  any  man  would  come  after  me,"  said 
Jesus,  "  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his 
cross,  and  follow  me"  (Matt.  i6:  24;  Mark  8: 
34;  Luke  9:  23).  Here  Jesus  makes  the  duty 
of  denying  self  an  essential  requisite  of  Chris- 
tian discipleship.  A  man  cannot  be  a  follower 
of  Jesus  unless  he  denies  himself,  or,  as  the 
Creek  term  indicates,  denies  himself  utterly. 
The  requirement  is  not  the  denial  of  anything, 

130 


Denying  Self,  Not  Denying  Things  to  Self        131 

cither  little  or  much,  to  self,  but  the  utter  denial 
of  self — a  very  important,  and  too  often  un- 
recognized  difference. 

As  the  term  stands  in  the  Greek,  the  injunc- 
tion of  our  Lord  to  his  every  disciple,  to  "  deny 
himself,"  includes  the  idea  of  turning  one's  self 
away  from  one's  self,  of  rejecting  self  as  the  de- 
sire of  self.  It  suggests  the  thought  of  two 
centers — self  and  Christ — the  one  to  be  denied 
and  the  other  to  be  accepted,  as  an  object  of 
attraction  and  devotedness.  Its  use  in  the  orig- 
inal seems  to  say :  "  If  you  would  turn  toward 
me,  you  must  turn  away  from  yourself.  If  you 
would  accept  me  as  the  chief  object  of  desire, 
you  must  renounce  yourself  as  such  an  object. 
If  you  would  henceforward  live  in  my  service, 
you  must  at  once  cease  to  live  for  your  own 
pleasure  and  interest." 

It  does  not  directly  enjoin  the  suppression  of 
self,  or  the  overcoming  of  self,  or  the  constant 
battHng  with  self;  but  it  calls  to  the  turning 
away  from  self,  the  ceasing  to  live  for  self,  the 
practical  ignoring  or  forgetting  of  self  as  a 
center  of  interest  and  as  an  object  of  desire. 
That  is  the  injunction,  in  its  meaning  and  in  its 
application.  Self-denial  is  self-ignoring  in  hearty 
self-surrender. 

It  is  a  very  common  mistake  concerning  the 


132  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

nature  of  self-denial,  to  suppose  that  it  involves 
a  constant  thought  of  self,  in  order  to  the  entire 
subjection  of  self.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  who 
lives  the  truest  life  of  self-denial  has  very  little 
trouble  with  himself;  being  absorbed  in  an  object 
of  interest  outside  of  himself,  he  forgets  him- 
self; living  for  something  worthier  of  his  de- 
votion, he  does  not  give  any  worrying  thought 
to  that  self  from  which  he  has  turned  away  in 
his  enthusiastic  pursuit  of  a  nobler  aim.  A  sol- 
dier is  worth  little  as  a  soldier  until  he  forgets 
himself  in  his  interest  in  his  soldier  duties.  If 
he  even  thinks  of  prolonging  or  protecting  his 
life  he  is  more  likely  to  lose  his  life  than  if  he  is 
absorbed  in  the  effort  to  do  his  work  manfully  as 
a  soldier.  An  unselfish  interest  in  our  fellows 
causes  us  to  forget  ourselves  in  our  loving 
thought  of  others.  An  unselfish  interest  in  our 
Friend  of  friends  takes  us  away  from  ourselves, 
and  fills  our  mind  with  a  simple  purpose  of  pleas- 
ing and  serving  him.  A  life  of  self-denial  is  not 
a  life  of  conflict  with  self ;  it  is  rather  a  life  turned 
away  from  self  in  utter  self-forgetfulness. 

Self-mortification  and  self-flagellations  and 
self-inflictions  or  self-deprivations  are  often 
mistakenly  supposed  to  be  elements  of  self- 
denial,  when  in  truth  they  are  only  modes  of 
self-nursing  or  self-seeking.     A   man   who   de- 


Denying  Self,  Not  Denying  Things  to  Self        133 

sires  to  win  a  prize  in  an  athletic  contest  will 
gladly  put  himself  in  training  in  order  to  be  in 
the  best  physical  condition  for  that  struggle. 
He  will  deny  to  himself  anything  in  the  line  of 
food  and  drink  and  luxurious  indulgences  that 
might  lessen  his  prospects  of  personal  victory. 
But  in  all  this  there  is  no  true  self-denial;  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  confessedly  a  method  of  per- 
sistent self-advancement.  A  prize-fighting  bully, 
who  lives  abstemiously  while  in  training  for  his 
contest  can  hardly  be  called  a  man  who  denies 
self,  and  who  lives  for  a  nobler  object  than  self- 
aggrandizement.  Professional  bank  robbers  and 
burglars  are  known  to  be  carefully  abstemious 
in  their  personal  habits,  and  to  deny  themselves 
the  use  of  liquor  or  tobacco  while  in  the  active 
practise  of  their  *'  profession ;"  but  who  would 
think  of  claiming  that  such  men  were  living 
lives  of  true  self-denial,  in  denying  to  them- 
selves those  indulgences  which  would  hinder 
them  in  their  selfish  pursuings? 

He  who  lives  for  the  acquisition  of  wealth,  or 
for  the  attainment  of  knowledge,  or  for  the  se- 
curing of  honor  and  fame,  is  ready  to  deny  to 
himself  food,  or  sleep,  or  personal  ease,  if  there- 
by he  can  promote  the  chief  object  of  his  life 
struggle.  But  whatever  else  he  denies  to  him- 
self, a  worker  of  this  sort  does  not  deny  him- 


134  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

self  to  himself.  Self  is  the  final  center  of  his 
living  and  being. 

If,  indeed,  a  man  strives  always  for  the  pro- 
motion of  his  highest  spiritual  welfare,  and  for 
the  completest  subjection  of  himself,  his  self- 
deprivations  and  his  self-mortifications  may  be 
nothing  more  than  carefully  chosen  modes  of 
self-improvement,  having  in  them  none  of  the 
qualities  or  merit  of  true  self-denial.  He  may 
fast  and  pray  and  live  a  life  of  retirement  and 
deprivation  in  order  to  save  his  spirit  or  self. 
There  is  no  denial  of  self  in  that.  It  is  all  self- 
ish living.  Such  a  man  is  living  for  self.  He  is 
seeking  to  save  himself.  He  lacks  the  first 
requisite  of  a  Christian  disciple.  He  who  turn- 
eth  not  away  from  self,  refusing  even  to  make 
the  eternal  saving  of  himself  the  chief  object 
of  living,  cannot  be  a  disciple  of  Jesus.   • 

A  life  of  true  self-denial,  or  of  denial  of  self, 
may  be  a  life  of  comparative  ease  and  fulness, 
while  a  life  of  endurance  and  privation  may  be 
wholly  a  life  of  self-seeking.  He  whose  nature 
and  tastes  would  prompt  him  to  a  life  of  activity 
and  adventure,  may  find  himself  called  of  God 
to  settle  down  quietly  in  loving  ministry  to  one 
of  Christ's  dear  ones  in  need  of  tender  care,  but 
whose  surroundings  are  those  of  relative  lux- 
ury.   Only  by  the  denial  of  self  can  such  a  man 


Denying  Self,  Not  Denying  Things  to  Self        135 

find  pleasure  in  the  acceptance  of  a  lot  exempt 
from  toil  and  hardship.  On  the  other  hand  a 
man  of  social  instincts  may  travel  to  the  end 
of  the  earth  in  loneliness  and  may  deprive  himself 
sorely  as  he  travels,  because  he  wants,  for  some 
reason,  to  hide  himself  from  all  who  know  him, 
or  because  he  is  seeking  reputation  or  reward 
in  a  discovery  which  he  hopes  to  make.  There 
is  no  denial  of  self  in  his  deprivations  and  en- 
durances, as  there  is  in  the  other  man's  settling 
down  in  a  home  of  luxury  at  the  call  of  God, 
contrary  to  his  personal  inclinations.  Not  what 
a  man  has,  not  what  he  yields,  but  the  aim  of 
his  life — toward  self  or  away  from  self — settles 
the  question  whether  he  exercises  true  self- 
denial  as  the  Bible  teaches  that  duty. 

He  who  would  deny  himself  at  the  call  of 
Christ  must  turn  away  from  himself  in  hearty 
rejection  and  utter  forgetfulness  of  himself  as 
an  object  of  life.  Not  what  seems  to  be  for 
his  own  interest  or  pleasure,  but  what  his  Mas- 
ter directs  for  him,  must  occupy  his  thoughts, 
and  claim  his  best  endeavors,  at  all  times.  It 
may  be  that  his  Lord  will  call  him  to  labors 
abundantly,  and  to  prisons  more  abundantly ;  to 
stripes  and  stonings ;  to  journeyings  often ;  to 
perils  of  rivers ;  to  perils  of  robbers ;  to  perils  in 
the  city;  to  perils  in  the  wilderness;  to  perils 


136  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

in  the  sea;  to  perils  among  false  brethren;  to 
travails  and  watchings ;  to  hunger  and  thirst  and 
fastings ;  to  cold  and  nakedness.  It  may  be  that 
that  same  Lord  will  call  him  to  dwell  in  his  own 
hired  house  in  the  world's  chiefest  city,  with 
friends  at  hand  in  Caesar's  palace. 

If,  indeed,  his  self-denial  be  complete,  it  will 
matter  little  to  him  whether  he  be  in  the  one 
state  or  in  the  other,  provided  only  he  be  where 
He  for  whom  he  lives  would  have  him.  With 
all  his  heart  he  can  say,  in  either  case :  "  I  have 
learned,  in  whatsoever  state  I  am,  therein  to  be 
content.  I  know  how  to  be  abased,  and  I  know 
also  how  to  abound;  in  everything  and  in  all 
things  I  have  learned  the  secret  both  to  be  filled 
and  to  be  hungry,  both  to  abound  and  to  be  in 
want.  I  can  do  all  things  in  him  that  strength- 
eneth  me"  (Phil.  4:  11-13). 

True  self-denial  is  the  denial  of  self  as  an 
object  of  service  or  of  interest,  through  a  sur- 
render of  self  to  One  who  alone  is  worthy  of  su- 
preme interest  and  devoted  service.  It  does 
not  depend  on,  or  consist  of,  either  fulness  or 
lack ;  but  it  accepts  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
conditions  gladly,  according  as  the  Master  for 
whom  self  has  been  renounced  may  ordain  and 
indicate. 


XVII 

BEARING  THE  CR055,  NOT 
BLARING  CR055L5 

"  Bearing  the  cross,"  or  "  taking  up  one's 
cross,"  has  a  well  defined  meaning  in  the  Bible. 
It  was,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  an 
expression  with  a  technical  signification,  com- 
monly understood  in  the  days  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers. 

"  Cross-bearing  "  is  not,  in  that  precise  form, 
a  Bible  term;  but  it  is  now  popularly  employed 
as  the  equivalent  of  the  phrase  "  bearing  the 
cross,"  although  with  a  very  different  meaning 
attached  to  it.  The  diverse  meanings  connected 
with  the  supposed  equivalent  terms  is  a  cause 
of  serious  misleading  in  Bible  reading,  and  in 
religious  conversation  and  thought. 

"  Cross-bearing  "  is  ordinarily  considered  the 
bearing  of  burdens,  or  the  enduring  of  trials,  in 
Christ's  service,  or  for  Christ's  sake.  "  Taking 
up  the  cross,"  or  "  bearing  the  cross,"  as  the 
phrase  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament  text, 
or  as  it  was  understood  at  the  opening  of  our 
Christian  era,  was  the  surrender  or  devotion  of 
one's  life  to  Christ's  service.    This  distinction  is 

137 


138  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

an  important  one  as  throwing  light  on  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus,  and  on  the  duty  of  his  every 
disciple. 

The  "cross,"  or,  more  literally,  the  "stake," 
was  the  instrument  of  execution  for  criminals, 
as  that  word  was  employed  in  classic  and  in 
Jewish  literature.  It  being  customary  for  a  con- 
demned criminal,  on  his  way  to  the  place  of 
execution,  to  carry  upon  his  shoulder  the  stake 
to  which  he  was  to  be  fastened,  or  by  which 
he  was  to  be  transfixed,  the  term  "  taking  up  the 
cross,"  or  "  bearing  the  cross,"  came  to  be  equiv- 
alent to  our  modern  term  "  halter-wearing "  or 
"  going  to  the  gallows."  He  who  bore  a  cross 
on  his  shoulder  was  recognized  as  one  who  was 
appointed  to  die,  and  he  must  stand  or  move 
with  that  grim  fact  staring  him  in  the  face. 

When  Jesus  had  been  sentenced  to  death,  "  he 
went  out,  bearing  the  cross  for  himself,  unto  the 
place  .  .  .  where  they  crucified  him."  (John 
19:  17,  t8).  Finding  that  his  strength  was 
insufficient  for  the  heavy  burden,  his  murderers 
compelled  one  Simon,,  of  Cyrene,  to  bear  the 
cross  for  Jesus.  (Matt.  27:  32;  Mark  15:  21; 
Luke  23:  26.)  This  was  a  natural  way  under 
such  circumstances.  The  victim  himself,  or 
some  one  who  was  reckoned  with  him.  bore  the 
cross,  or  the  stake,  on  his  shoulder,  to  the  place 


Bearing  the  Cross,  Not  Bearing  Crosses         139 

of  execution.  He  who  thus  bore  the  cross  was 
seen  to  be  on  his  way  to  give  up  his  Hfe,  or  he 
was  accounted  as  a  sharer  with  the  condemned 
one. 

When  Jesus  found  his  disciples  expectant  of 
honors  in  his  service  as  the  Alessiah,  and  longing 
for  places  nearest  him  when  he  should  be  up- 
lifted in  his  kingdom,  he  told  them  that  they 
little  knew  what  they  were  asking.  His  first 
uplifting  was  to  be  on  a  cross.  Would  they 
be  willing  to  share  that  experience  with  him? 
"  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask,"  he  said.  '*  Are  ye 
able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  am  about  to  drink  ?" 
(Matt.  20:  22;  Mark  10:  38).  It  costs  some- 
thing, he  suggested,  to  be  my  follower.  A  man 
who  enlists  in  my  service  must  do  so  with  a 
halter  around  his  neck.  If  he  cares  more  for 
his  life  than  for  me,  he  is  unfitted  to  be  one  of 
my  disciples.  "  If  any  man  cometh  unto  me 
and  hateth  not  [in  comparison  with  me]  his 
own  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children, 
and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea  and  his  own  life 
also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.  Whosoever 
doth  not  bear  his  own  cross  and  come  after  me 
cannot  be  my  disciple  "  (Luke  14:  26,  27). 

Whoever  would  follow  me  must  be  ready  to 
give  up  his  life  for  my  sake,  and  he  must  walk 
after  me,  bearing  his  cross  on  his  shoulder,  as  I 


140  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

bear  mine,  to  the  place  of  crucifixion.  "  If  any 
man  would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  him- 
self and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me."  As 
showing  that  this  had  reference  to  giving  up 
life  for  him  and  his  cause,  he  added :  "  For  who- 
soever would  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  and  who- 
soever shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the 
gospel's  shall  save  it"  (Mark  8:  35;  Luke 
9:  23,  24). 

In  every  instance  in  which  our  Lord  spoke  of 
taking  up  the  cross,  or  of  bearing  the  cross  as  a 
test  of  discipleship,  he  used  the  term  in  this 
sense  of  voluntary  life-surrender.  The  disciple 
of  Christ  must  put  his  life  at  the  disposal  of 
Christ;  he  must  do  as  Christ  would  have  him 
do,  rather  tlian  as  he  might  personally  prefer 
to  do.  He  must  live  and  move  and  be  as  one 
whose  life  is  no  longer  at  his  own  disposal. 
This  must  be  his  new  thought  with  each  new 
day,  and  it  must  control  his  every  act  and  word 
and  purpose.  Not  the  suffering  that  might  ac- 
company crucifixion,  but  the  surrender  of  life 
even  to  crucifixion  for  Christ's  sake,  was  signi- 
fied and  symbolized  in  bearing  the  cross,  as  our 
Lord  enjoined  it  upon  those  who  would  be  dis- 
ciples. 

Just  here  is  where  the  conventional  meaning 
of  the  term  '*  cross-bearing "  diflfcrs  so  widely 


Bearing  the  Cross,  Not  Bearing  Crosses         141 

from  its  biblical  meaning.  A  "  cross "  is  no 
longer  understood  to  be  a  stake,  a  gibbet,  or  a 
gallows;  but  it  includes  anything  that  crosses, 
or  thwarts,  or  vexes,  or  tries,  us,  in  our  daily 
Hfe-path;  hence  the  bearing  of  a  cross  is  now 
supposed  to  be  the  bearing  or  enduring  of  trials 
and  sufferings,  petty  or  great,  for  Christ's  sake. 
Alexander  Cruden,  who  has  perhaps  done  as 
much  to  shape  popular  theology  by  the  defini- 
tions in  his  Concordance  as  Milton  has  to  shape 
popular  eschatology  by  his  descriptions  in  Para- 
dise Lost,  says  that  "  pains,  afflictions,  troubles 
and  unprosperous  affairs,  were  called  crosses  " 
in  classic  days ;  but  no  classical  authorities  seem 
to  justify  this  claim  of  Cruden.  In  the  Cen- 
tury Dictionary,  with  its  claim  to  give  the 
consensus  of  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  fa- 
miliar words,  we  are  told  that  "  to  bear  a  cross  '* 
is  "  to  endure  with  patience  a  discomfort  or 
trial ;"  and  this  is  a  fair  rendering  of  the  modern 
popular  meaning  of  "  cross-bearing."  We  are, 
moreover,  told,  in  the  same  Century  Dictionary, 
not  only  that  the  term  "  cross "  means  "  any 
suffering  voluntarily  borne  in  Christ's  name  and 
for  Christ's  sake,"  but  that  this  was  our  Lord's 
use  of  the  word  when  he  said,  "  He  that  taketh 
not  his  cross  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not 
worthy  of  me."     And  here  is  a  fresh  illustration 


142  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

of  the  truth  that  dictionary-makers  are  as  liable 
as  other  men  to  misread  Bible  texts,  in  the  light 
of  popular  errors  of  opinion  as  to  the  teachings 
of  those  texts. 

There  is,  of  course,  no  such  thing  as  ''little 
crosses"  in  one's  daily  life  course,  although  one 
often  hears  such  things  spoken  of.  If  a  cross  is 
a  cross  at  all  it  is  big  enough  to  hang  on,  to  die 
on.  If  it  is  not  large  enough  for  that,  it  is  not  a 
cross  in  the  Bible  sense,  or  in  the  classical  sense, 
of  that  term. 

It  is  true  that  cross-bearing,  as  a  synonym  of 
voluntary  life-surrender,  includes  whatever  of 
suffering,  or  of  trial-enduring,  or  of  personal 
privation,  may  come  to  one  as  a  disciple  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  the 
essential  thing  in  cross-bearing  is  suffering,  or 
trial  enduring,  or  personal  privation,  for  Christ's 
sake.  Cross-bearing  is  the  signifying  of  one's 
readiness  to  live  or  to  die,  or  to  live  and  to  die,  in 
Christ's  service,  with  or  without  suffering — as 
the  duty  of  the  hour  may  require. 

When  the  members  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress decided  to  sign  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, they  realized  that  they  were  thereby 
putting  a  halter  around  their  necks.  As  one  of 
their  own  number  then  said,  ''  Now,  we  must  all 
hang  together,   or   we   shall  hang  separately." 


Bearing  the  Cross,  Not  Bearing  Crosses         143 

Unless  they  were  ready  to  die,  if  need  be,  in  de- 
fense of  the  stand  they  then  took,  they  were  not 
worthy  to  sign  that  Declaration.  It  might,  in- 
deed, be  their  lot  to  endure  much  suffering  as  a 
consequence  of  that  act  of  theirs;  but  whether 
they  suffered  or  not  personally,  they  signified 
their  readiness  to  accept  the  full  consequences  of 
their  action,  even  to  the  extent  of  surrender  of 
their  lives — thus  devoted  to  the  cause  of  Amer- 
ican independence. 

As  Dr.  Bushnell  suggested,  of  a  later  crisis  in 
American  affairs,  the  practical  issue  between  the 
two  sides  in  our  Civil  War  was  in  the  question, 
who  could  furnish  the  most  dead;  yet  no  one 
would  claim  that  the  mere  suffering  or  dying  of 
a  soldier  on  the  right  side  of  that  contest  was  in 
itself  such  a  proof  of  his  fidelity  as  he  had  given 
when  he  enlisted  for  the  war,  with  his  life  pledged 
to  the  prosecution  of  that  contest  to  its  end.  So 
it  is  in  Christian  cross-bearing;  it  is  the  devotion 
of  the  life  to  Christ's  service,  rather  than  any  suf- 
fering or  trial  that  ensues  from  such  devotion, 
which  makes  and  marks  the  Christian  disciple  as 
a  Christian  disciple. 

In  the  modern  popular  understanding  of  the 
duty  of  cross-bearing,  discomfort  or  trial  or  suf- 
fering for  Christ's  sake  is  the  all-essential  feature 
of  service ;  but  in  the  New  Testament  presenta- 


144  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

tion  of  this  duty,  the  all-essential  thing  is  the 
voluntary  surrender  of  one's  life  to  Christ's  serv- 
ice— suffering  or  no  suffering.  In  the  one  case, 
the  suffering  is  looked  at  as  essential;  in  the 
other  case,  the  suffering  is  recognized  as  merely 
incidental.  As  men  ordinarily  see  it,  he  is  the 
truest  cross-bearer  who  has  most  trials  to  endure, 
and  who  endures  them  faithfully  for  his  Master. 
As  the  Bible  presents  it,  he  is  the  truest  cross- 
bearer  who  most  heartily  puts  himself  at  the 
service  of  Christ,  for  joy  or  for  sorrow,  for  want 
or  for  fulness,  for  life  or  for  death.  Cross- 
bearing  is  not  hard  asceticism ;  it  is  cheerful  and 
unquestioning  devotedness.  It  is  not  living  for 
the  purpose  of  denying  oneself;  it  is  living  for 
Christ,  even  though  one  must  deny  himself  in 
order  to  such  living. 

It  is  such  cross-bearing  as  this  that  prepares 
the  way  for  crown-wearing.  He  who  would  save 
his  life  by  penances  and  unnecessary  privations 
shall  lose  it.  But  he  who  would  surrender  his 
life  for  Christ's  sake  shall  find  it  in  a  joyous  here 
and  hereafter,  in  the  presence  and  service  of 
Christ. 


XVIII 

SACRIFICE  AS  A  MEANS  OF 
PERSONAL  ENJOYMENT 

Among  the  Bible  words  that  have  been  de- 
flected from  their  primitive  meaning  is  the  word 
''sacrifice."  The  English  word  is  from  the  two 
Latin  words  sacer,  "sacred,"  and  facio,  "to  make." 
It  means  a  sacred  offering,  a  consecrated  gift  to 
God.  Both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  word 
generally  translated  in  the  Bible  "sacrifice"  means 
"to  slaughter,"  or  to  pour  out  the  blood,  or  the 
life,  of  a  victim,  as  a  holy  offering.  Yet  there  is 
another  Hebrew  word  translated  "sacrifice" 
which  means  simply  an  "offering,"  bloody  or  un- 
bloody, including  prayer.  Strictly  speaking, 
therefore,'  any  gift  to  God,  even  the  gift  of 
prayer  or  praise  or  love,  is  a  sacrifice.  But  such 
an  offering  may  be  given  cheerfully  or  grudg- 
ingly, and  we  are  so  accustomed  to  give  to  God 
grudgingly  that  we  have  an  idea  that  there  must 
be  something  of  that  nature,  of  a  grudgingly 
given  gift,  in  every  sacrifice. 

Our  ordinary  idea  of  a  sacrifice  is,  that  it  is  a 
painful  giving  up  of  that  which  we  prize  and 
delight  in,  and  which  we  would  like  to  retain.  We 

145 


146  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

understand  that  we  can  sacrifice  our  life,  our 
health,  our  ease,  our  comfort,  our  worldly  means, 
our  reputation,  our  position  in  life,  and  that  it 
may  be  our  duty  to  do  so.  But  we  do  not  think 
of  sacrifice  as  in  itself  a  pleasant  act,  as  one  that 
is  to  us  more  enjoyable  than  anything  else  could 
be.  We  do  not  count  a  delightful  hour,  or  day, 
in  the  society  of  a  friend,  the  giving  of  a  birthday 
or  a  Christmas  gift  to  the  one  we  hold  dearest, 
the  singing  a  song  of  rejoicing  when  we  have 
been  made  happy  by  another,  the  sharing  our 
abundant  or  surplus  means  with  a  worthy  one 
in  need,  as  a  sacrifice.  But  the  latter  may  be  as 
truly  a  sacrifice  as  the  former.  Sacrifice  does 
not  depend  on  the  cost  which  it  involves,  but  on 
the  spirit  which  prompts  it. 

Whether  a  sacrifice  is  made  unto  God  or  to  a 
fellow-being,  it  has  its  chief  value  in  being 
counted  a  sacred  or  a  holy  offering.  Any  offer- 
ing deemed  sacred  or  holy  ought,  of  course,  to 
be  rendered  heartily  and  with  gladness,  be  it  God- 
ward  or  man-ward,  since  that  which  is  a  duty 
ought  to  be  performed  cheerfully  and  with  joy- 
fulness.  The  more  joyous  its  giving,  the  more 
truly  is  it  an  acceptable  gift.  "God  loveth  a 
cheerful  [literally  a  hilarious]  giver"  (2  Cor. 
9:7),  and  man,  also,  loveth  a  cheerful  giver. 
Yet  there  are  offerings  in  the  line  of  duty  that 


Sacrifice  as  a  Means  of  Personal  Enjoyment       147 

furnish  us  conscious  enjoyment,  while  there  are 
others  that  are  consciously  made  by  us  at  a 
painful  cost.  Both  are  sacrifices,  but  the  differ- 
ence is  in  the  different  spirit  in  which  they  are 
given.  Not  what  the  gifts  are  as  an  offering, 
but  what  we  are  as  their  offerers,  makes  the  one 
painful  and  the  other  pleasurable. 

A  main  cause  of  our  confusion  of  mind  as  to 
the  true  meaning  of  sacrifice  is  that  we  make  self 
our  center,  instead  of  making  God  and  God's 
dear  ones  our  center.  We  want  to  have  that 
which  will  please  ourselves,  rather  than  that 
which  will  please  God,  or  God's  dear  ones.  When 
we  find  communion  with  another  pleasurable  to 
ourselves,  we  do  not  count  it  a  trial  to  give  up 
our  time.  When  we  have  sincere  love  for  an- 
other, we  have  delight  in  giving  to  that  object  of 
our  love.  Communing  with  God,  and  giving  to 
God,  would  be  also  pleasurable  if  we  were  con- 
trolled by  love  for  him. 

Sacrifices  to  God,  as  called  for  in  the  ancient 
law  of  Israel,  were  intended  to  show  love  for 
God.  We  are  apt  to  think  of  the  cost  of  those 
sacrifices,  instead  of  thinking  of  the  spirit  shown 
in  their  making.  We  forget  that  love  was  and  is 
the  fulfilment  of  law,  and  that  the  pouring  out  of 
the  life  of  beasts  sacrificed  according  to  the  law 
was  not  merely  in  order  to  destroy  that  life,  but 


148  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

it  was  in  order  to  render  it  up  as  a  loving  gift  to 
God.  It  was  the  love  prompting  the  offering,  not 
the  intrinsic  value  of  the  offering  itself,  that  made 
the  sacrifice  acceptable  to  God.  As  it  was  toward 
God  in  the  sacrifices  of  old,  so  is  it  toward  our 
fellows  in  the  sacrifices  we  are  now  called  to 
make  day  by  day. 

**  A  true  sacrifice  to  God, "  says  St.  Augustine, 
**  is  every  work  which  is  done  that  we  may  be 
united  to  God  in  holy  fellowship,  and  which  has 
a  reference  to  that  supreme  end  in  which  alone 
we  can  be  truly  blessed. "  It  ought  not  to  be  a 
painful  duty  to  us  to  do  that  which  evidences 
our  highest  love,  and  which  best  promotes  our 
personal  welfare.  That  is  the  kind  of  sacrifice 
that  God  wants  from  us,  and  that  is  the  kind  of 
sacrifice  that  we  ought  to  delight  in  making.  But 
this  is  not  the  way  we  ordinarily  look  at  sacrifice. 

Self-denial,  for  example,  is  always  hard ;  but 
self-sacrifice  may  be  hard,  or  it  may  be  easy. 
Self-denial  inevitably  involves  a  battle  with  self. 
Self-sacrifice  does  not  necessarily  call  for  a  strug- 
gle. It  may,  indeed,  be  pleasant  to  devote  or  sur- 
render one's  self,  one's  powers,  one's  possessions, 
one's  interests,  to  another's  sway,  or  to  a  cause 
v^'hich  seems  worthy  of  one's  devotedness.  But 
it  is  a  sad  illustration  of  the  perversion,  if  not 
of  the  decrradation,  of  the  human  intellect  and 


Sacrifice  as  a  Means  of  Personal  Lnjoyment       149 

character,  that  self-sacrifice,  self-devotedness 
which  is  sacred  and  holy,  has  so  commonly  come 
to  be  counted  a  necessarily  painful  and  unde- 
sirable outlay  of  self  at  the  call  of  dry  duty.  ''  1 
suppose  I  must  sacrifice  myself,"  is  the  way  one 
is  likely  to  speak  when  he  feels  that  this  is  his 
duty.  He  would  hardly  deem  it  a  proper  way 
of  speaking  to  say,  "  I  am  called  to  the  most 
delightful  service  imaginable.  I  am  going  to  sac- 
rifice myself  for  the  cause  I  love  best,"  or,  **  to 
the  person  dearest  to  me." 

The  common  way  is  as  though  a  man  were  to 
say  explicitly :  "  For  me  to  be  devoted  to  another 
in  love,  or  in  friendship ;  for  me  to  be  devoted  to 
my  country,  to  the  welfare  of  my  fellow-beings, 
or  even  to  my  God, — is  contrary  to  all  my  in- 
stincts and  impulses  and  conscious  desires.  I  do 
not  want  to  be  devoted  to  any  one  or  to  anything 
outside  of  my  immediate  personal  self.  In  order 
to  any  sacred  devotedness  I  must  subject  myself 
to  a  constant  denial  of  the  real  longings  of  my 
lower  and  of  my  stronger  self. " 

Even  if  this  had  to  be  recognized  as  the  true — 
and,  as  human  nature  is,  as  the  inevitable — state 
of  the  case,  its  simple  recognition  would  tend  to 
aid  one  in  struggling  against  the  disclosure  and 
continued  existence  of  such  a  pitiable  condition 
of  affairs.    But,  thanks  be  to  God,  it  is  not  true 


150  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

that  self-sacrifice  always  involves  conscious  self- 
denial,  or  always  necessitates  an  obvious  struggle 
with  self.  Self-sacrifice  is,  in  one  form  or  an- 
other, the  truest  joy  of  every  true  man  or  true 
woman ;  and,  the  truer  one  is  in  real  manhood  or 
in  real  womanhood,  the  more  potent  is  the  sway 
of  self-sacrifice  in  his  or  her  life-course,  and  the 
less  prominent  in  that  sphere  is  the  struggle  in 
the  direction  of  self-denial. 

To  love  devotedly,  and  to  deem  one's  loving  a 
sacred  devotedness,  is  to  be  self-sacrificing  in 
love,  but  it  is  not  necessarily  to  be  consciously 
self-denying  in  one's  love,  even  though  at  times 
it  may  be  so.  A  young  mother,  for  example,  is 
self-sacrificing  in  her  love  for  her  child.  In  the 
exhibit  of  her  self-sacrificing  love,  she  may  have 
to  deny  herself  sleep  which  her  tired  physical 
nature  craves.  The  specific  self-denial,  in  this 
instance,  costs  her  a  struggle ;  but  the  controlling 
self-sacrifice,  of  which  the  self-denial  is  an  in- 
cident, does  not.  The  one  is  not  easy ;  the  other 
is.  The  one  is  not  in  itself  a  delight ;  the  other 
is  a  real  joy.  And  as  the  mother's  self-sacrificing 
devotedness  gains  in  power  by  its  exercise, — as 
all  good  is  sure  to  gain, — the  sense  of  self-denial, 
or  even  the  need  of  self-denial  as  such,  is  less 
and  less,  the  very  self  of  the  devoted  one  com- 
ing into  subjection  to,  or  into  conformity  with, 


Sacrifice  as  a  Means  of  Personal  Enjoyment      151 

the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  self-sacrificing — 
the  self-surrendered — devotion  in  love. 

The  young  patriot  v^ho  is  swayed  by  a  self- 
sacrificing  devotion  to  his  country  in  its  peril, 
may  have  to  deny  himself  daily  while  in  the 
course  of  his  training  as  a  soldier;  but  because 
of  the  all-swaying  power  of  his  hearty  and  joy- 
ous self-sacrifice,  as  a  patriotic  soldier,  he  hardly 
thinks  of  the  incidental  self-denial  involved  in 
its  exhibit.  And  by  and  by  the  sorrowful  self- 
denial  on  his  part  is  practically  at  an  end,  being 
overwhelmed  by,  and  swallowed  up  in,  his  glad- 
some self-sacrifice.  So,  again,  is  it  with  the 
young  student,  in  training  for  a  part  in  an  inter- 
collegiate boat-race  or  football  game.  Any  self- 
denial  in  the  course  of  his  training  is  of  minor 
importance,  in  his  mind,  in  comparison  with  his 
self-sacrifice,  or  with  his  self-devotedness,  in 
behalf  of  the  college  of  which  he  is  a  joyous 
representative. 

Whenever,  in  fact,  an  all-absorbing  devoted- 
ness  has  control  of  a  man's  affections  and  pur- 
poses, his  consequent  self-sacrifice  in  that  direc- 
tion practically  precludes  the  idea  of  self-denial 
in  the  same  direction.  Self  is  forgotten,  in  love 
for  that  which  is  dearer  than  self.  The  busy 
man  who  finds  not  a  minute  to  spare  from  his 
pressing  office  duties,  and  who  would  deem  it 


152  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

an  act  of  self-denial  to  give  audience  to  any 
ordinary  special  visitor,  springs  with  delight  from 
his  seat  at  the  entrance  of  one  whom  he  loves 
devotedly  in  a  self-sacrificing  friendship.  There 
is  no  thought  of  self-denial  in  the  glad  surrender 
of  his  time  in  such  an  instance ;  his  self-surrender 
is  but  a  joyous  self-sacrifice.  So  is  it  with  one 
who  makes  glad  gifts  to  a  loved  one  in  proof  of 
his  self-sacrificing  devotedness  to  the  recipient. 
So,  moreover,  it  is  with  every  self-forgetful  de- 
votee everywhere  and  always. 

As  it  is  man-ward,  so  it  is  God-ward.  There 
is  practically  no  conscious  self-denial  in  intelli- 
gent right-minded  and  all-controlling  self- 
sacrifice  toward  God.  Loving  God  as  we  ought 
to  love  him, — as  we  shall  love  him  if  we  give 
him  due  thought  in  his  relation  to  ourselves, — we 
can  only  joy  in  the  privilege  of  showing  our  love 
for  him  in  every  way  possible ;  and  then  the  more 
we  can  do  for  him,  or  endure  for  him,  the  more 
we  shall  have  of  joy  in  the  exhibit  of  our  pre- 
vailing self-sacrifice  toward  him. 

Just  here  it  is  that  the  Jews  of  old  were  con- 
stantly making  the  mistake  which  is  so  common 
among  Christians  to-day.  God  had  shown  to 
them  that  they  might  evidence  their  self-devoted- 
ness  to  him  by  bringing  their  offerings  as  sacri- 
fices to  his  sanctuary.     They  fell  into  the  error 


Sacrifice  as  a  Means  of  Personal  Lnjoyment      153 

of  looking  upon  these  proofs  of  their  devotedness 
as  having  a  value  because  of  their  intrinsic  worth. 
They  practically  lost  sight  of  the  essential  dif- 
ference between  self-denial  and  self-sacrifice. 
Therefore  it  was  that  the  Lord,  by  his  prophets, 
repeatedly  reminded  them  of  the  true  import  of 
all  sacrifices,  and  of  the  folly  of  looking  at  them 
in  any  other  light.  "  What  unto  me  is  the  mul- 
titude of  your  sacrifices?  ...  I  delight 
not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs, 
or  of  he-goats.  .  .  .  Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations.  .  .  .  Cease  to  do  evil :  learn  to  do 
well;  seek  justice,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge 
the  fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow.  '*  (Isaiah  i : 
11-17.) 

**  Offer  the  sacrifices  of  righteousness,  and  put 
your  trust  in  Jehovah."     (Psalm  4:5.) 

And  it  was  in  this  view  of  the  truth  that  the 
inspired   Psalmist  could  say  in   all   earnestness, 

"  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit : 

"  A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou 
wilt  not  despise.  "     (Psalm  51 :  17.) 

"  And  now  shall  mine  head  be  lifted  up  above 
mine  enemies  round  about  me ; 

"  And  I  will  offer  in  his  tabernacle  sacrifices 
of  joy; 

"  I  will  sing,  yea,  I  will  sing  praises  unto 
Jehovah."     (Psalm  2y'.  6.) 


154  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Thanksgiving  to  God  is  a  sacrifice  well-pleas- 
ing to  God.  Praise  is  sacrifice.  Jesus  Christ  had 
joy  in  sacrificing  himself  for  us.  Our  greatest 
enjoyment  ought  to  be  found  in  continual  self- 
sacrifice  to  God,  and  in  Christ-like  self- 
sacrifices  for  those  whom  God  loves,  and  hence 
whom  we  ought  to  love. 


XIX 
LOVE  NOT  A  MATTER  OF  FEELING 

There  are  few  words  in  the  English  language 
of  so  great  importance,  or  which  are  so  vague  in 
meaning  to  the  average  person,  as  the  word 
"  love.  "  "  God  is  love,  "  and  '*  love  is  of  God.  " 
Love  is  the  very  nature  of  God,  and  love  is  the 
highest  attribute  and  the  foremost  duty  of  man. 
Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  Godward  and 
manward.  Love  is  the  greatest  thing  in  the 
world,  and  the  holiest.  Yet  on  the  other  hand, 
'*  love  "  is  used  as  a  synonym  of  lust,  and  of 
unholy  desire,  and  of  sinful  craving;  and  men 
are  warned  against  the  misleadings  of  love,  with 
its  manifold  dangers  to  the  soul.  What  is  this 
"  love,"  with  so  much  of  good  in  it,  and  of  evil? 
What  does  the  word  itself  mean,  and  how  comes 
it  that  it  represents  both  that  which  is  right,  and 
that  which  is  wrong ;  that  which  is  to  be  sought, 
and  that  which  is  to  be  shunned  ? 

A  popular  idea  of  "  love  "  is  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  feeling  or  of  emotion ;  that  it  is  not  within  the 
control  of  the  will,  but  rather  that  it  is  a  result 
of  attraction  or  of  fancy,  regardless  of  reason 
or  of  purpose.     Yet  the  Bible  repeatedly  com- 

155 


156  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

mands  love  as  a  duty,  and  again  it  warns  against 
love  as  a  temptation;  therefore,  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  love,  either  in  its  good  sense  or  its 
bad,  is  merely  a  matter  of  feeling. 

The  truth  is,  there  is  "  love, "  and  there  is 
"love. "  Both  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  the  Greek, 
there  are  several  words,  of  different  shades  of 
meaning,  which  are  alike  translated  "  love ;  "  and 
this  is  a  prime  cause  of  the  ambiguity  of  the 
English  word  which  is  taken  to  represent  them 
all.  The  root  idea  of  the  Hebrew  word  which 
stands  for  divine  love,  and  for  the  holiest  love 
of  which  man  is  capable,  is  that  of  "  giving, "  of 
"  outgiving ;  "  it  applies  to  an  unselfish  attitude 
of  being,  rather  than  to  an  emotion,  or  feeling, 
of  the  soul.  The  idea  of  another  Hebrew  word, 
also  translated  "  love,"  is  that  of  lust,  or  of 
selfish  indulgence.  These  two  words,  of  diamet- 
rically opposite  meanings,  are  translated  by  a 
single  word  in  our  English  tongue;  and  it 
is  much  the  same  with  the  Greek  as  with  the 
Hebrew.  What  wonder  that  the  average  Eng- 
lish reader  is  confused  in  finding  "  love  "  used  in 
one  connection  in  the  sense  of  an  unselfish  out- 
giving of  devotion,  and  in  another  connection  in 
the  sense  of  selfish  craving  or  of  sinful  desire  ! 

Our  English  word  "  love  "  is  represented  in  the 
Sanskrit,  with  the  original  meaning  of  "  covet- 


Love  Not  a  Matter  of  Feeling  157 

ousness,  "  or  of  "  selfish  longing.  "  Another  San- 
skrit word  for  **  love "  stands  for  our  word 
"  friendship, "  with  the  central  thought  of  a  gen- 
erous outgiving  of  self.  Hence  there  is  "  love  " 
that  is  love,  and  there  is  "  love  "  that  is  not  love. 
There  is  love  that  represents  an  attitude  of  being 
which  is  approved  of  God  and  of  man ;  and  there 
is  love  that  represents  a  mere  state  of  feeling 
which  is  not  meritorious  or  gainful.  The  love 
which  God  bears  to-  man  is  not  a  matter  of  feel- 
ing, but  an  attitude  of  being;  and  it  is  such  love 
that  God  commands  and  commends  in  men. 

The  central  idea  of  *'  loving,  "  in  its  best  sense, 
is  that  of  *'  holding  dear.  "  That  which  we  count 
precious,  and  are  willing  to  give  ourselves  to,  or 
to  give  to  of  our  time  and  means,  we  may  be  said 
to  love,  apart  from  any  question  of  our  emotions 
or  feelings.  A  man  who  really  loves  his  country, 
holds  his  country  dear,  and  is  willing  to  risk,  or 
to  lay  down,  his  life  for  it.  But  he  may  have  no 
thrills  of  feeling  as  he  thinks  of  his  country ;  and 
he  may  be  unable  to  convince  himself  that  his 
patriotism  is  all-prevailing  by  any  process  of 
analyzing  his  emotions.  So  of  one  who  loves 
his  parents,  or  his  wife,  or  his  children,  sacredly. 
The  proof  of  his  love  is  in  what  he  is  willing  to 
do  for  them,  and  to  be  toward  them,  and  not  in 
how  he  feels  about  them.    Thus,  also,  in  a  man's 


158  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

love  to  God,  and  in  a  man's  love  to  those  whom 
God  loves, — it  is  in  holding  God  dear,  and  in 
holding  dear  God's  dear  ones,  that  the  power  of 
true  love  is  evidenced ;  the  feelings  have  very 
little  to  do  with  the  matter. 

Even  where  love  is  strongest,  the  feelings 
may  work  against  the  will,  and  the  will  may  have 
to  exert  itself  in  behalf  of  the  love  as  against 
the  emotions.  A  soldier's  feelings  may  prompt 
him  to  run  from  danger,  when  duty  calls  him  to 
meet  it  bravely.  His  love  for  his  country  at  such 
a  time  is  shown  in  the  exercise  of  his  will  against 
his  feelings.  A  husband  or  a  father  is  many  h. 
time  called  to  show  love  by  doing,  or  by  being, 
as  true  love  prompts,  when  his  feelings  incline 
him  to  show  a  very  different  state.  So  in  every 
testing  hour,  as  to  man's  love  to  God.  The 
question  is,  What  is  he  ready  to  do,  or  to  be,  in 
proof  of  his  holding  God  dear  ?  not,  How  does 
he  feel  about  it  all  just  now  ? 

"  Loving  "  and  "  liking  "  are  often  used  as  if 
they  merely  indicated  different  degrees  of  affec- 
tion. To  "  like,  "  the  dictionary  tells  us,  is  ''  to 
be  pleased  with  in  a  moderate  degree ;  "  while  to 
"  love  "  is  "  to  delight  in,  "  or  to  have  a  "  devoted 
attachment.  "  "  I  like  him,  but  I  do  not  love 
him,  "  says  one ;  thereby  meaning  tliat  the  inter- 
est felt  in  him  is  a  very^slight  interest.     "  No 


Love  Not  a  Matter  of  Feeling  159 

one  who  knows  him  can  merely  like  him;  they 
must  love  him, "  says  another,  who  would  thus 
indicate  that  the  feeling  inspired  by  him  must 
always  be  of  the  superlative  degree.  This  under- 
standing of  the  two  words  relatively  is  very  well 
as  far  as  it  goes;  but  neither  word  has  only  a 
single  meaning.  Each  word  means  one  thing  at 
one  time,  and  another  thing  at  another  time ; 
and  unless  we  recognize  the  fact  of  these  differ- 
ing significations  of  the  two  words  severally,  we 
lose  the  power  of  using  them  or  of  noting  their 
use  discriminatingly. 

"  Liking "  is  sometimes  employed  as  expres- 
sive of  a  feeling  of  personal  satisfaction  with  a 
thing ;  in  contrast  with  "  loving  "  as  expressive 
of  a  feeling  of  unselfish  affection  for  it ;  the  one 
representing  the  subjective,  and  the  other  the 
objective,  phase  of  its  enjoyment.  Thus  we  may 
be  said  to  love  nature,  and  to  like  the  fruits  that 
nature  brings  to  us.  It  is  this  view  of  the  case 
that  is  taken  by  the  poet  Wordsworth,  when  he 
illustrates  to  a  child  a  difference  between  loving 
and  liking: 

"Say  not  you  love  a  roasted  fowl, 
But  you  may  love  a  screaming  owl. 

Nor  blush  if  o'er  your  heart  be  stealing 
A  love  for  things  that  have  no  feeling: 


160  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

The  spring's  first  rose  by  you  espied. 
May  fill  your  breast  with  joyful  pride; 
And  you  may  love  the  strawberry-flower, 
And  love  the  strawberry  in  its  bower; 
But  when  the  fruit  so  often  praised 
For  beauty,  to  your  lip  is  raised. 
Say  not  you  love  the  delicate  treat, 
But  like  it,  enjoy  it,  and  thankfully  eat. 

You  love  your  father  and  your  mother, 
Your  grown-up  and  your  baby  brother; 
You  love  your  sister  and  your  friends, 
And  countless  blessings  which  God  sends: 
And  while  those  right  affections  play. 
You  live  each  moment  of  your  day; 
They  lead  you  on  to  full  content, 
And  likings  fresh  and  innocent, 
That  store  the  mind,  the  memory  feed, 
And  prompt  to  many  a  gentle  deed. 
But  likings  come  and  pass  away; 
*Tis  love  that  remains  till  our  latest  day : 
Our  heavenly  guide  is  holy  love, 
And  will  be  our  bliss  with  saints  above." 

This  distinction  also  is  a  fitting  one ;  but  it  does 
not  exhaust  or  limit  the  meanings  of  the  two 
words  severally.  "  Liking  "  has  a  force  in  con- 
trast with  "  loving  "  that  goes  deeper  and  out- 
reaches  farther  than  would  be  indicated  by  these 
suggestions. 

To  "  like  "  is  often  used  as  expressive  of  satis- 
faction with  another,  or  with  another's  ways  :  as 


Love  Not  a  Matter  of  Feeling  161 

growing  out  of  a  similarity  of  recognized  ideals. 
"I  like  to  see  a  man  as  thoughtful  of  others  as 
he  is ; "  *'I  like  his  high  sense  of  honor ;  "  "I 
like  his  reverent  spirit ;  "  ''  I  like  such  sensitive- 
ness and  delicacy  as  he  shows ;  "  *'  I  like  him^ 
because  of  his  unselfish  devotion  to  his  mother;" 
— such  expressions  as  these  indicate  a  great 
deal  more  than  a  selfish  pleasure  in  the  conduct 
of  the  one  criticised.  They  have  even  greater 
force  than  would  have  the  phrase  "  I  love  him 
dearly. "  **  Liking "  another,  in  this  sense^  is 
approving  the  standard  of  the  one  liked ;  and  so 
far  it  is  a  step  beyond  loving  him. 

We  can  even  love  another  without  liking  him ; 
and  we  can  be  loved  while  we  are  not  liked.  A 
wife  can  love  a  worthless  or  an  unloving  hus- 
band, when  she  cannot  like  him.  A  mother  can 
dearly  love  a  reprobate  and  ungrateful  son,  whom 
it  is  impossible  for  her  to  like.  To  love  is  to  hold 
dear.  To  like  is  to  approve  and  commend.  Lov- 
ing does  not  always  carry  liking  with  it,  any 
more  than  liking  always  carries  loving.  We  can 
approve  and  commend  and  like  one  toward  whom 
we  have  no  feelings  of  love ;  and  we  may  even  be 
better  liked  by  those  who  do  not  love  us  than  by 
those  who  do. 

It  is  pleasant  to  be  loved.  It  is  good  to  be 
liked.    Best  of  all  is  it  to  be  both  loved  and  liked. 


162  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

We  can  be  loved  by  those  whose  judgments  con- 
demn us.  We  shall  be  liked  by  those  whose  judg- 
ments approve  our  ideals,  and  whose  discern- 
ment recognizes  our  steady  struggling  toward 
those  ideals.  If  the  choice  must  be  made  by  us, 
it  were  better  to  deserve  to  be  liked  by  the  wise 
and  good,  than  to  win  love  apart  from  the  ques- 
tion of  our  deserts.  If,  however,  we  deserve  to 
be  liked,  we  are  not  likely  to  live  and  die  unloved 
in  the  world. 

It  has  been  said  that  we  ought  so  to  live  that 
God  will  not  only  love,  but  like  us.  This  is  an- 
other way  of  saying  that  our  lives  ought  to  be  so 
conformed  to  God's  image  in  Christ,  that  our 
hkeness  to  him  will  have  his  recognition 
and  approval  and  liking.  God  loves  us  even 
now,  because  of  what  he  is.  If  we  are  like- 
minded  with  his  Son,  God  will  so  far  like  us  for 
what  we  are. 

In  reading  Bible  commands  to  love,  or  Bible 
warnings  against  love,  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind 
the  two  kinds  of  love,  and  know  that  we  should 
love,  in  the  sense  of  holding  dear,  what  God  holds 
dear ;  and  that  we  are  not  to  give  way  to  a  crav- 
ing desire  for  aught  that  God  disapproves.  In 
reading  Bible  references  to  liking,  or  to  becom- 
ing liked,  we  are  to  know  that  we  have  no  right 
to  like,  or  to  be  like,  what  God  cannot  like.  The 


Love  Not  a  Matter  of  Feeling  163 

more  we  love  as  God  loves,  the  more  we  shall  be 
like  God  in  our  loving  and  in  our  likings. 


XX 

WHOM  DOL5  GOD  LOVE? 

A  prominent  Sunday-school  worker,  who  was 
accustomed,  in  former  years,  to  visit  Sunday- 
schools,  and  to  address  the  little  ones  there, 
sometimes  startled  the  little  folks  in  the  primary 
department,  and  even  their  teachers,  by  his 
unlooked-for  questions  and  statements. 

"  What  kind  of  children  does  God  love  ?  "  he 
would  ask. 

"Good  children,"  "Good  children,"  would 
come  back  the  answer  from  the  confident  little 
ones  in  every  part  of  the  room. 

"  Doesn't  God  love  any  children  but  good 
children  ?  "  the  visitor  would  ask. 

"  No,  sir,"  would  be  the  hearty  response. 

Then  the  visitor  would  startle  or  shock  the 
little  ones,  and  sometimes  their  teacher,  by  say- 
ing plainly  and  deliberately: 

"  I  think  that  God  loves  bad  children  very 
dearly.  " 

At  this,  some  of  the  surprised  little  ones  would 
draw  lip  their  mouths,  and  perhaps  exclaim 
"  Oh  !  "  Others  would  simply  stare  in  bewilder- 
ment. Perhaps  the  toncher  would  have  a  look  of 
wonder   or  regret,   and  wait  for  the  next  dis- 

164 


Whom  Does  God  Love?  165 

closure  of  ignorance  or  error  on  the  speaker's 
part. 

"  Did  I  say  that  God  loved  to  have  little  chil- 
dren bad  ?  "  was  the  visitor's  next  question. 

"  No,  sir;"  "  No,  sir,"  would  come  back  from 
some  of  the  startled  little  ones  in  a  tone  of  relief. 

"  No,  I  didn't  say  that  God  loves  to  have  chil- 
dren bad.  God  loves  to  have  children  good.  He 
wants  them  to  be  very  good, — as  good  as  they 
can  be.  But  when  they  are  bad  children  God  still 
loves  them.  God  is  very  loving,  and  he  keeps  on 
loving  little  ones  who  don't  even  love  him  at  all." 

That  would  be  a  new  idea  to  many  of  those 
little  ones.  And  there  is  nothing  that  a  child  is 
quicker  to  catch,  or  gladder  to  receive,  than  a 
bright,  new  idea  at  any  time.  The  average  child 
would  take  in  the  thought  suggested  quicker  and 
more  willingly  than  the  average  teacher.  Then 
that  visitor  would  make  the  thought  plainer  to  the 
pupils  by  an  illustration. 

**  Does  your  mother  love  you  ?  "  he  would  ask. 

Almost  every  child  would  promptly  answer, 
"  Yes,  sir,  "  to  that  question. 

**  Were  you  ever  a  bad  child  ?  "  was  the  next 
home  thrust. 

''  Yes,  sir, "  would  come  back  faintly  fron? 
some. 

*'  Did  your  mother  stop  loving  you  then  ?    Dic^ 


166  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

you  have  to  feel  that  there  was  no  loving  mother 
to  go  back  to,  because  you  were  a  bad  child  ?  " 

The  child  heart  recoiled  from  that  thought, 
knowing  the  mother  heart  too  well  to  admit  it. 
Then  was  the  time  to  press  the  precious  truth 
that  God  loves  bad  children  more  than  the  lov- 
ingest  father  or  the  lovingest  mother  in  the  world 
loves  a  child;  that,  even  when  the  father  and 
mother  forsake  a  needy  child,  the  Lord  will  take 
up  that  child  tenderly.  That  Sunday-school 
worker  found,  in  his  wide  field  of  observation, 
how  common  and  how  deep  seated  is  the  idea 
that  a  child's  acceptance  with  God  is  rather  be- 
cause of  the  child's  lovableness  than  because  of 
God's  lovingness.  Nor  is  this  fearful  error  to  be 
found  merely,  or  chiefly,  among  primary-class 
pupils  and  their  teachers. 

In  Mr.  Moody's  authorized  Life,  by  his  son, 
W.  R.  Moody,  this  incident  is  mentioned,  which 
shows  the  existence  of  the  error  where  it  would 
have  been  least  looked  for.  Henry  Moorehouse 
of  Great  Britain  had  preached  in  Mr.  Moody's 
mission  during  his  temporary  absence  from  the 
city.  This  was  in  1866,  or  a  little  later.  Mr. 
Moody  tells  of  his  asking  Mrs.  Moody  about  Mr. 
Moorehouse,  when  he  returned  to  Chicago.  She 
said,  as  if  she  had  heard  a  new  truth  jiroclaimcd 
in  that  pulpit : 


Whom  Does  God  Love?  167 

"  Well,  he  tells  the  worst  sinners  that  God 
loves  them.  " 

"  Then,  "  said  I,  *'  he  is  wrong.  " 

"  I  think  you  will  agree  with  him  when  you 
hear  him,  "  said  she,  ''  because  he  backs  up  every- 
thing he  says  with  the  Bible." 

Mr.  Moody  soon  came  to  believe  that  what  he 
had  deemed  an  error  of  Henry  Moorehouse's  was 
the  truth  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  of 
sinners, — not  of  saints,  but  of  sinners.  Because 
Mr.  Moody  came  to  this  conviction,  thousands 
of  sinners,  who  heard  him  declare  it,  came  to 
Jesus  Christ  to  be  saved. 

The  Christian  Church  is  by  too  many  looked 
at  as  an  exhibition  place,  where  Christians  are 
shown  off  as  Christians,  instead  of  as  a  hospital 
w^here  the  spiritually  halt  and  maimed  and  deaf 
and  blind  and  leprous  are  treated  for  their  sick- 
ness and  failings.  This  keeps  out  of  the  church 
a  great  many  who  belong  there,  and  would 
gladly  be  under  treatment  there,  if  only  they 
realized  its  mission  for  them.  The  church  also 
has  in  its  membership  many  who  have  come 
there  with  a  wrong  idea  of  what  they  proclaim 
and  disclose  by  their  church-membership. 

The  writer  heard  that  a  former  neighbor  of 
his  had,  when  past  the  middle  of  life,  con- 
nected himself   with   the  church.     Meeting  the 


168  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

neighbor,  he  expressed  his  gratification  at  the 
step  he  had  taken.  This  was  the  response  that 
came  back  in  a  self-satisfied  tone : 

"  Well,  I  thought  it  over  a  good  while.  I 
know  I  have  my  faults,  but  I'm  better  than  the 
average,  and  so  I  thought  I'd  join  the  church.  " 

It  was  not  easy,  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  for  those 
who  thought  themselves  better  than  the  average 
to  see  how  it  was  possible  for  Jesus  to  show  a 
loving  interest  in  sinners  while  they  were  yet 
sinners.  But  Jesus  could  see  it.  It  was  sinners 
whom  he  loved,  and  whom  he  came  to  save.  This 
truth,  pupils  and  teachers,  sinners  and  those  who 
think  themselves  better  than  ordinary  sinners, 
have  yet  to  realize  more  fully  than  most  of 
them  do. 


XXI 

ARL  CHILDREN  BORN  CONDLMNLD 
OR  RLDLLMLD? 

"  As  in  Adam,  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive"  (i  Cor.  15:  22).  Simple  and 
intelligible  as  this  statement  of  the  apostle  to  the 
heathen  people  seems  to  be,  it  has  been  a  cause 
of  much  difference  and  discussion  among  Bible 
students  and  theologians  for  centuries.  It  is  by 
many  held  to  be  a  sweeping  and  general  state- 
ment, not  to  be  taken  literally,  but  by  one  means 
or  another  to  be  conformed  to  more  exact  de- 
nominational tenets.  By  others  it  is  accepted  as 
indicating,  in  its  fulness,  the  abounding  love  of 
God  for  the  human  race.  In  view  of  its  import- 
ance and  of  the  wide  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  its  general  meaning,  the  truth  as  to  this  state- 
ment is  always  worthy  of  consideration. 

It  was  in  love — which  God  is — that  as  the 
crowning  act  of  creation  God  formed  man  in  his 
own  image,  as  the  head  and  representative  of  the 
human  race,  giving  him  high  privileges,  and  en- 
joining upon  him  obedience  to  specific  law  as  the 
cost  of  preserved  life.  Adam,  knowing  the  cost, 
deliberately  and  wilfully  sinned  and  incurred  the 

169 


170  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

"  wages  of  sin."  In  that  sin  of  Adam  the  race 
of  man,  of  which  he  was  the  head,  came  under 
condemnation.  But  God's  love  never  failed  or 
wavered.  While  the  first  pair,  the  twain-one, 
were  yet  alone  in  the  condemned  race,  God  in  his 
love  gave  promise  and  assurance  of  redemption ; 
and  when  the  first  child  was  born  to  that  con- 
demned and  redeemed  head  of  the  race,  it  was 
born  into  a  redeemed  race. 

But  a  redeemed  race  was  not  a  saved  race.  A 
child  redeemed  by  a  Christ  promised,  or  by  a 
present  Christ,  was  not  a  child  saved  from  the 
power  of  sinning  and  of  receiving  the  wages  of 
sin.  The  first  child,  Cain,  whom  Eve  rejoiced 
over  as  the  possible  Christ,  proved  to  be  the  first 
murderer.  Cain,  and  every  child  bom  since  then, 
was  relieved  from  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin,  but 
like  Adam  was  put  on  trial  for  himself  and  must 
choose  whether  he  would  obey  and  trust  or  would 
prefer  sin  and  its  disclosed  wages.  This  is  the 
sweeping  truth  as  to  the  race  condemned  in 
Adam  and  redeemed  in  Christ.  No  child  is  con- 
demned for  his  father's  sin ;  but  every  child  is 
liable  to  sin  for  himself  when  he  comes  to  the 
age  of  intelligent  choice.  Thus  it  has  been  from 
the  beginning  in  all  lands,  and  everywhere,  and 
thus  it  is  to-day,  as  God  sees  and  knows  the 
inner  being  of  each  and  of  all. 


Are  Children  Bom  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?     171 

Of  course,  there  are  sad  consequences  of  for- 
mer transgressions  which  increase  the  weakness 
and  temptability  to  sin  of  the  children  of  sinning 
parents,  but  all  that  is  not  wilful  or  deliberate 
transgression,  nor  does  it  merit  condemnation. 
God,  who  knows  and  judges  the  real  person,  un- 
derstands as  to  all  that.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  privileges  and  blessings  in  Christ  to 
those  who  know  Christ  in  his  fulness,  and  who 
trust  him  in  his  love  and  his  promises  beyond 
those  who  never  knew  him  and  who  never 
trusted  him.  Parents  may,  if  they  will,  include 
their  children  with  themselves  in  their  faith,  and 
may  trust  God  as  fully  for  their  children  as  for 
themselves.  This  is  the  truth  as  I  have  come 
to  realize  it,  and  to  rejoice  in  it,  and  as  I  now 
desire  to  press  it  upon  others. 

MY  FORMLR  VILW5  ON  THL  5UBJLCT 

In  1868,  by  special  request,  I  read  an  essay 
on  "  Childhood  Conversion  "  before  the  Massa- 
chusetts State  Convention  of  Sunday-school 
teachers  at  Woburn.  That  essay  was  published 
as  a  booklet,  and  in  that  form  it  had  quite  a 
circulation  beyond  the  number  of  its  original 
hearers.  But  later  Bible  scholarship  has  rendered 
some  of  its  phraseology  obsolete.  Moreover, 
my  own  experiences  with  my  children,  and  in  the 


172  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

fuller  enjoyment  of  faith  in  our  blessed  Saviour 
for  ourselves  and  for  our  children,  have  broad- 
ened and  deepened  my  convictions  of  the  relation 
of  children  to  Christ  and  of  Christ  to  children. 
Hence  I  desire  to  restate  the  truths  treated  in 
that  essay,  so  as  to  present  them  in  fuller  accord 
with  the  light  of  God's  teachings. 

Our  revised  Bible  Text  shows  that  the  com- 
mand to  '*  be  converted "  was  an  erroneous 
translation,  which  misled  our  fathers,  and  caused 
them  to  mislead  their  children.  In  place  of  the 
command  to  be  converted  or  to  be  born  again, 
the  true  text  tells  us  and  ours  to  ''  turn,"  as  a 
positive  active  duty,  instead  of  waiting  passively 
for  a  work  to  be  wrought  upon  us  which  only 
God  can  compass.  Turning  trustfully  is  our 
duty,  whenever  we  are  on  the  wrong  track,  or  are 
swerving  from  the  right  course.  God,  who 
watches  us  lovingly,  will  supply  whatever  help  or 
power  is  needful. 

Even  at  the  time  when  I  read  the  essay  the 
phraseology  of  which  was  affected  by  the  old 
Bible  translation,  I  had  already  learned  as  a  be- 
liever to  trust  my  Saviour  for  my  children  from 
the  beginning  as  I  trusted  him  for  myself  as  a 
sinner.  A  little  incident  in  connection  with  the 
reading  of  the  essay  made  that  clear  as  to  my 
personal  belief.    As  I  took  my  seat  on  the  plat- 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     173 

form,  after  reading  the  essay,  a  hearer  in  the 
body  of  the  house  called  out : 

*'  Will  the  speaker  inform  us  how  young  a  child 
can  be  Christ's  own  ?  " 

*'  It  is  not  for  me  to  fix  the  day  or  the  hour," 
I  said.  ''  But  for  my  own  conviction  I  can  say 
that  my  youngest  child  is  not  yet  twelve  hours 
old;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  has  been 
Christ's  a  considerable  time." 

A  child  had  been  born  to  me  in  Hartford  about 
eleven  o'clock  the  night  before ;  and  I  had  taken 
the  midnight  train  for  Boston  just  after  that. 
It  was  after  this  remark  that  a  prominent  Bap- 
tist pastor  of  Boston  came  to  me  and  said : 

"  You  take  the  right  view  of  the  case,  Brother 
Trumbull.  I  heard  a  good  Baptist  doctor  of 
divinity  say  years  ago,  '  John  the  Baptist 
preached  Christ  while  still  in  the  womb.'  "  (See 
Luke  1 :  15,  41,  44.)  I  thought  of  that  remark 
when  later  I  heard  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell  say  in 
an  interdenominational  meeting  of  clergymen,  in 
his  peculiar  phrase : 

"  I  don't  know  what  right  we've  got  to  say 
that  a  child  can't  be  born  again  before  he's  born 
the  first  time." 

Of  course  even  the  duty  to  "  be  converted," 
as  understood,  or  as  misunderstood  by  our  fath- 
ers, was  not  the  same  as  being  "  born  again." 


174  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

But  the  two  terms  were  often  confused.  Con- 
version is  now  seen  to  be  the  simple  act  of  turn- 
ing toward  God.  Regeneration,  or  the  second 
birth,  is  wholly  the  work  of  God.  A  child  of 
man  has  no  more  to  do  with  it  than  he  had  with 
his  first  birth.  For  the  first  birth  the  human 
father  is  responsible ;  for  the  second  birth  the 
Divine  Father  is  responsible.  It  is  not  for  the 
child  to  feel  that  he  has  a  personal  duty  in  the 
matter  in  either  instance.  It  is  for  him  to  recog- 
nize his  personal  duty  as  growing  out  of  his 
human  father's,  or  of  his  Divine  Father's,  act. 
Heaven  and  earth,  God  and  child,  seemed  differ- 
ent to  me  when  I  realized  this  great  truth. 

LIGHT  ON  THE.  SUBJECT  FROM  THL  BIBLL 

In  consequence  of  my  early  training  on  the 
subject,  I  was  long  in  doubt  as  to  the  personal 
relation  of  children  to  Christ  before  they  are  old 
enough  to  make  an  intelligent  choice  of  him  as 
their  Saviour.  I  heard  it  so  many  times  said  in 
the  pulpit  or  prayer-meeting,  and  I  so  often  read 
it  in  religious  papers  and  books,  that  children 
are  born  as  lost  souls,  that  I  actually  came  to 
believe  that  there  was  some  truth  in  that  horrible 
dogma.  Even  after  my  marriage  and  the  birth 
of  my  first  two  children  I  had  not  been  wholly 
released  from  this  unreasonable  and  unbiblical 


Are  Children  Bom  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     175 

error.  The  attempts  to  evade  the  sweep  of  this 
sentence  of  death,  by  theories  which  would  in- 
clude more  or  less  of  the  young  as  exceptions  to 
the  general  rule,  did  not  give  me  any  real  hope. 
It  was  obviously  too  unreasonable  and  too 
shadowy  to  satisfy  me.  Hence  I  sat  in  the  dark 
while  I  longed  for  the  light. 

Various  phases  of  the  idea  of  regeneration  of 
an  unintelligent  child  by  a  formal  rite  of  circum- 
cision or  of  baptism  did  not  help  the  case. 
Passages  of  Scripture  cited  and  misused  in  sup- 
port of  this  wrong  view  did  not,  to  my  mind, 
meet  the  case.  I  could  only  pity  those  who 
found  help  through  such  errors ;  but  for  years  I 
sought  vainly  anything  more  satisfactory  or  con- 
vincing. 

My  first  real  light  on  the  subject  of  God's  lov- 
ing plans  for  children  and  of  his  thoughts  of  them 
when  he  was  purposing  to  repair  the  wrong 
wrought  for  them  by  our  first  father,  Adam, 
came  through  the  suggestion  to  me  of  the  mean- 
ing of  inspired  words  in  Malachi.  The  persons 
who  pointed  me  to  this  passage  were  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Leonard  Woolsey  Bacon  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
William  W.  Patton,  both  of  whom  had  been  per- 
sonally helped  through  seeing  the  light  from  this 
passage  after  suffering  in  the  darkness  under  the 
shadow  of  the  old  popular  dogma. 


176  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Malachi  (2:  15),  speaking  of  the  covenant 
union  by  which  husband  and  wife  are  made  one, 

says :    "  And  did  he  not  make  one  ? 

And  wherefore  one  ?  He  sought  a  godly  seed." 
The  very  purpose  of  God  in  marriage  among  his 
dear  ones  is  the  increase  of  "  godly  seed  " ;  not 
as  children  who  start  life  as  lost,  or  condemned, 
children  who  when  they  grow  up  may  be  won  to 
Christ  as  heathen  are  won  through  missionaries, 
but  are  from  the  first  a  "  godly  seed,"  godly  chil- 
dren of  covenant  parents.  The  recognition  of 
this  truth  put  the  unity  of  the  family  in  a  new 
light  to  me ;  and  also  the  position  and  privilege 
of  the  children  of  believing  parents  in  God's  sight 
and  plan.  Malachi  is  the  last  writer  of  the 
prophets  before  the  coming  of  Jesus.  He  it  is 
who  tells  of  the  coming  of  John  the  Baptist, 
who  "  shall  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the 
children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their 
fathers."     (Mai.  4:  6.) 

Then  as  I  recognized  this  glad  truth,  I  was 
met  with  the  claim  that  in  consequence  of  the 
sin  of  the  first  Adam,  all  children — even  of  be- 
lieving parents — are  born  condemned,  and  must 
be  lost  sinners  unless  they  individually  turn  from 
death  to  life,  from  Satan  to  the  Saviour. 
At  this  I  longed  to  believe  that  as  much  for  good 
was  wrought  to  the  race  by  the  Second  Adam 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     177 

as  had  been  wrought  for  evil  by  the  first  Adam. 
I  had  been  brought  up  to  believe  that  Christ  was 
more,  not  less,  than  Adam  in  both  his  work  and 
his  influence.  If  I  had  been  mistaken  as  to  this 
I  must  learn  Bible  truth  all  over  again.  Then  I 
newly  turned  to  the  Bible  for  light  on  this  sub- 
ject. I  saw  that  the  Scriptures  left  no  doubt  on 
this  point.  The  pervasive,  cleansing  power  of 
Christ  for  good  was  every  way  greater  than  that 
of  evil  wrought  to  the  race  by  Adam.  In  con- 
sequence of  this,  "  where  sin  abounded 
[through  Adam]  grace  [through  Christ]  did 
abound  more  exceedingly."  (Rom.  5:  20.)  This 
gave  me  new  light  and  love  in  my  better  under- 
standing of  the  work  and  grace  of  Christ. 

From  this  new  starting-point  I  studied  the 
Scriptures  with  added  profit  and  gratitude,  find- 
ing them  fully  consistent  with  the,  to  me,  freshly- 
disclosed  truth,  in  preference  to  the  old  error,  by 
whomsoever  taught  or  held.  It  proved  to  me 
that  there  is  a  new  covenant  of  grace,  bringing 
light  and  life  to  such  as  me  and  mine.  And  now 
I  am  confident  that  through  God's  love  in 
Jesus  Christ  every  child  of  Adam's  descendants 
comes  into  being  as  free  from  guilt  and  its  con- 
demnation as  Adam  was  created.  Of  course 
there  are  all  the  added  tendencies  toward  sin, 
and  all  the  physical  and  mental  weaknesses  which 


178  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

grow  out  of  wrong  habits  indulged  by  successive 
generations  of  human  parents ;  but  spiritually 
every  human  child  starts  as  free  and  with  as  much 
ground  for  hope  as  Adam  started.  Until,  there- 
fore, a  child  has  deliberately  and  wilfully  chosen 
to  sin  he  is  not  a  sinner,  and  does  not  stand 
under  condemnation. 

As  to  this  precious  truth,  I  am  now,  and  I  long 
have  been,  as  confident  as  of  the  truth  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Saviour.  How  much  more  God's 
love  seems  to  me  since  God's  word  disclosed  to 
me  this  truth !  And  how  much  more  is  the 
recognized  work  of  Christ,  and  how  much  vaster 
is  the  scope  of  his  redemption,  than  when  limited 
and  perverted  by  the  pernicious  errors  of  human 
illogical  and  unscriptural  dogmas  under  which  I 
was  brought  up — or  kept  down! 

A  favorite  perversion  of  Scripture  by  those 
who  deny  or  belittle  Christ's  redemption  of 
Adam's  condemned  posterity  is  an  ejaculation  of 
the  Psalmist  in  one  of  the  penitential  psalms : 

"  Behold,  I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity: 
And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."      (Psa. 
51:   5.) 

This  psalm  is  supposed  to  have  been  written 
by  David  when  he  had  been  personally  guilty  of 
yielding  to  lust,  and  of  committing  adultery  and 
murder,  and  of  showing  himself   faithless  and 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?     1 79 

treacherous  to  a  trustful  and  devoted  follower. 
The  expression  is  a  common  Oriental  one,  as 
indicative  of  self-abasement,  in  view  of  inex- 
cusable personal  transgression.  One  who  has 
been  notoriously  guilty  of  unparalleled  treachery 
will  confess  that  he  is  of  a  family  that  for  gen- 
erations could  never  be  trusted.  In  this  he  means 
to  intensify  his  confession  of  being  different 
from  all  his  fellows.  It  is  evident  that  whatever 
else  the  psalmist  intended  to  say,  he  did  not 
mean  to  assert  that  his  neighbors  were  all  of  a 
like  sinning  stock  with  himself.  It  is  suggestive 
of  a  strange  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to 
ignore  Bible  teachings,  and  common  sense,  while 
seeking  to  uphold  at  any  cost  a  doctrine  that 
one's  fathers  believed,  but  which  will  not  stand 
the  light  of  truth.  The  frequency  with  which 
this  personal  penitential  psalm  is  cited  in  digests 
of  doctrine  as  if  it  supported  the  theory  that  all 
children  belong  to  a  race  which  Christ  did  not 
redeem,  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  find  a  Bible 
passage  that  even  seems  to  suggest  such  an  idea. 
Whatever  else  is  taught  in  the  Bible  as  to  the 
present  condition  of  Adam's  posterity,  a  passage 
that  does  not  teach  or  suggest  the  condemnation 
of  the  race  is  Psalm  51:5, 

"  Behold  /  was  born  in  iniquity, 
And  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me." 


180  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

It  is  strange  that  one  who  believes  that  doctrine 
should  consent  to  cite  that  ejaculation  which 
tends  to  throw  discredit  on  the  theory. 

The  real  truth  stands  out  in  the  pages  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  of  the  New  for  the  cheer  of 
those  who  would  know  what  God  would  teach 
us  concerning  his  love  and  plans  for  the  young- 
est children.  The  **  Evangelical  Prophet  "  says 
as  to  this  (Isa.  28:  9),  speaking,  by  inspiration, 
of  God's  messenger  to  men,  *'  Whom  will  he 
teach  knowledge  ?  and  whom  will  he  make  to 
understand  the  message  ?  Them  that  are  weaned 
from  the  milk  and  drawn  from  the  breast  ? " 
There  does  not  seem  to  be  much  doubt  about 
very  young  children  being  included  there.  Isaiah 
did  not  appear  to  want  them  to  wait  even  until 
they  could  recite  the  catechism  before  they  were 
tc  be  counted  God's  children. 

When  Jesus,  to  whose  coming  Isaiah  had 
looked  forward,  came  to  earth,  he  made  the  mat- 
ter yet  more  .clear.  His  disciples  thought  that 
very  young  children  were  less  hopeful  objects  of 
grace  than  were  their  fathers,  and  they  would 
have  pushed  back  parents  who  came  to  Jesus 
with  children  in  their  arms  to  seek  his  blessing. 
But  "  when  Jesus  saw  it  [the  action  of  his  dis- 
ciples] he  was  moved  with  indignation,  and  said 
unto   them,   Suffer  the   little   children   to  come 


Are  Children  Bom  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?     181 

unto  me ;  forbid  them  not ;  for  to  such  belongeth 
the  kingdom  of  God."  (Mark  lo:  14.)  Yet 
these  were  little  children.  It  does  not  appear 
that  they  had  themselves  given  any  sign  of  a 
changed  nature  or  purpose;  but  their  parents 
brought  them  in  love  and  faith.  And  Jesus  wel- 
comed them  just  as  they  were.  He  did  not  say 
they  might  when  they  grew  up  become  worthy 
of  God's  recognition  or  forgiveness.  He  said 
unqualifiedly  of  such  as  they:  "For  to  such 
belongeth  [even  now  just  as  they  are]  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

Such  words  as  Jesus  then  spoke  would  now  be 
rebuked  by  many  a  theological  professor,  or 
ordained  minister.  They  do  seem  very  broad 
views,  fearlessly  expressed;  but  to  those  who 
want  to  know  what  Jesus  thinks  on  the  subject 
there  his  words  stand.  And  all  his  teachings  are 
in  the  same  line.  At  one  time  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  came  and  asked  him  about  standards  of 
worth  in  God's  kingdom,  saying,  "  Who  then 
is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  And  he 
called  to  him  a  little  child  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
of  them,  and  said,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  except 
ye  [the  chosen  disciples]  turn,  and  become  as 
little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  (Matt.  18:  1-4.)  Jesus 
did  not  say  that  when  a  child  became  as  fit 


182  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

a  subject  of  grace  as  a  clergyman  or  a  theological 
professor  there  was  reasonable  ground  of  hope 
for  him.  But  Jesus  did  say  that  unless  choice 
ministers  and  theological  teachers  of  his  time 
turned  and  became  as  the  little  child — a  veritable 
flesh  and  blood  little  child — there  was  no  hope 
for  them. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  long- 
promised  outpouring  of  God's  Spirit  came,  as 
foretold  by  the  prophet  Joel,  Peter,  leader  of  the 
Apostles,  and  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  declared 
specifically  to  the  great  multitude  gathered  under 
the  new  dispensation,  *'  To  you  is  the  promise, 
and  to  your  children"  (Acts  2:  39).  And  all 
the  Bible  teachings  from  that  day  on  were  in  the 
same  line.  God  be  praised,  the  "  Second  Adam  " 
did  as  much  of  good  for  every  child  of  man  be- 
fore his  birth  as  the  first  Adam  did  of  evil  !  How 
unworthy  would  it  be  of  our  conception  of  Christ 
if  we  could  not  believe  this  ! 

Paul  urges  Christian  parents  to  bring  up  their 
children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord  (Eph.  6:4).  He  does  not  urge  them  to 
win  them  from  condemnation  to  redemption,  but 
to  bring  them  up  in  Christ,  wherein  they  already 
are. 

The  inspired  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  shows  how  all  the  promises  to  Abraham 


Are  Children  Bom  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     183 

and  his  seed  are  more  than  made  good  in  Christ 
to  all  who  are  Abraham's  seed  in  faith.  As 
sharers  in  the  parents'  flesh  and  blood  by 
nature,  the  children  can  be  sharers  with  the  par- 
ents in  the  realm  of  grace  in  Christ.  Unhesitat- 
ingly confident  in  this  truth  the  believing  parent 
can  bring  his  children  to  God,  nothing  doubting, 
saying  in  faith,  as  he  prays  with  them  and  for 
them,  saying,  ''  I  will  put  my  trust  in  Him ;  and 
again.  Behold,  I  and  the  children  whom  God  hath 
given  me."  (Heb.  2:  13.)  God  never  refused 
to  accept  such  a  parent  or  such  a  child  We  can 
be  as  sure  of  that  as  that  God  is  God. 

CORRLCT  VILWS  BY  MANY  OF 
GOD'S  CHILDREN 

It  is  true  that  many  have  been  so  misled  by 
erroneous  man-made  dogmas  and  human  systems 
of  doctrine  that  they  hesitate  to  accept  the  truth 
as  taught  in  God's  word,  and  as  in  accordance 
with  our  knowledge  of  God's  love  and  God's 
power.  But  there  are  many,  very  many,  who 
accept  the  truth  as  God  declares  it,  and  as  we 
are  justified  in  receiving  it.  All  who  accept  the 
truth  as  declared  in  the  Bible,  and  as  disclosed 
in  human  experience  and  observation,  are  ready 
to  admit  that  when  Adam  of  his  own  choice  and 
act  cut  himself  ofif  from  God,  he  and  his  belong 


184  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  a  lost  and  outcast  race.  Before  the  first 
human  child  was  born,  however,  redemption  by  a 
Saviour  was  promised,  and  from  that  hour  every 
child  who  has  been  born  into  the  world  has  been 
born  into  a  redeemed  race. 

Of  course  every  child  has  had  the  privilege — if 
it  be  deemed  a  privilege — of  being  lost  by  his 
deliberate  choice  of  evil;  but  his  being  lost  is  in 
consequence  of  his  own  choice,  and  not  of  his 
parents',  or  his  ancestors'  choice  or  sins.  This 
seems  too  obviously  in  accord  with  Bible  teach- 
ings and  sound  reason  to  admit  of  serious  discus- 
sion, and  many  of  the  wise  and  good  have 
recognized  the  truth.  Happily  this  is  no  ques- 
tion on  which  denominational  differences  make  a 
separation.  Whatever  the  verbal  basis  of  belief 
in  this  may  be,  God-led  individuals  accept  the 
truth,  without  being  misled  by  verbal  mis- 
teachings. 

Infant  baptism  is  not  involved  in  this  belief. 
Baptism  is  a  human  rite.  In  itself  it  does  not 
shape  the  heart  or  thought  of  the  subject,  either 
young  or  older.  Some  believe  that  baptism  is 
always  to  accompany  the  confession  or  expres- 
sion of  one's  personal  faith.  Others  believe  that 
baptism  of  a  child  is  to  accompany  or  indicate 
the  dedication  of  the  child  to  God  with  the  hope 
on   the   parent's   part   that   the   child   will   later 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?     1 85 

choose  for  himself  the  right.  Yet  others  think 
that  baptism  belongs  only  to  those  who  already 
are  the  loved  and  accepted  children  of  God.  With 
these  differences  of  view  the  right  of  baptism 
and  its  administering  are  not  directly  involved 
in  the  question  of  the  present  relation  of  the 
child  to  Christ,  and  of  Christ  to  the  child.  The 
latter  is  vastly  more  than  differences  of  opinion 
as  to  the  right  of  baptism,  and  the  persons  who 
are  to  receive  the  rite. 

It  was  a  prominent  Baptist  pastor  in  Boston, 
who,  as  referred  to  above,  told  me  that  I  was 
correct  in  counting  my  son  of  a  few  hours  old 
already  Christ's,  and  who  quoted  another  Baptist 
doctor  of  divinity  as  saying  that  John  the  Baptist 
preached  Christ  while  he  was  yet  in  the  womb. 
Yet  neither  of  those  Baptist  divines  would  have 
deemed  either  child  spoken  of  as  a  fit  subject  for 
baptism. 

An  eminent  Baptist  clergyman,  widely  known 
as  a  college  president,  as  a  theological  professor, 
and  as  an  author,  said  to  the  writer  that  he 
should  never  dare  to  be  a  father,  or  to  bring  a 
child  into  the  world,  until  he  was  confident  that 
he  had  a  right  to  trust  his  Saviour  for  his  child 
as  well  as  for  himself.  He  could  say  confidently 
to  his  Saviour, ''  Behold,  I  and  the  children  whom 
God  hath  given  me." 


186  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

I  know  a  number  of  earnest  Baptist  pastors 
who  have  what  they  call  a  dedication  service,  in 
the  churches  of  their  charge.  In  this  service, 
little  children,  infants,  are  brought  by  their  par- 
ents, and  in  the  presence  of  the  church  and  con- 
gregation are  publicly  dedicated  to  God  and  to 
his  service.  And  there  are  Baptist  preachers  and 
people  who  approve  of,  or  who  have  a  part 
in,  such  a  service,  because  they  count  children  as 
loved  and  redeemed  by  God  in  Christ.  So  it  is 
evident  that  Baptists  believe  this  truth. 

When  I  first  came  by  independent  Bible  study 
to  this  view  of  children  as  born  into  a  race  re- 
deemed by  Christ,  I  thought  it  was  a  novelty,  and 
I  feared  I  should  be  deemed  a  heretic.  But  when 
I  was  with  a  number  of  Methodist  clergymen, 
including  several  who  afterward  became  bishops, 
the  most  prominent  of  those  said  that  this  view 
was  what  was  held  by  them,  as  the  gracious  con- 
dition of  childhood,  and  by  many  of  their 
soundest  theologians.  While  not  all  Methodists 
held  to  every  dogma  that  their  theology  or  their 
standards  justified,  any  more  than  all  Presby- 
terians accept  every  point  included  in  their 
articles  of  faith,  all  Methodists  have  a  right  to 
believe  that  children  are  bom  into  a  state  of 
grace,  redeemed  by  Christ.  And  many,  very 
many,  rejoice  in  that  belief  as  to  their  own  chil- 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     187 

dren,  whom  they  train  from  the  beginning  for 
Christ. 

Methodists  are  authorized  to  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  secured  to  the  race  of  man  a  start  as  re- 
deemed from  the  curse  which  came  through 
Adam's  sin.  This  their  standards  show.  Yet  the 
attempt  to  employ  human  words  as  covering 
spiritual  conditions,  and  to  reduce  to  human 
logic  the  bounds  of  the  boundless,  infinite  and 
eternal,  lead  many  of  them,  as  those  of  other 
denominations  are  led,  into  confusion  or 
inconsistencies  or  doubts.  In  the  official  Doc- 
trine and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  it  is  specifically  affirmed :  *'  We  hold 
that  all  children,  by  virtue  of  the  unconditional 
benefits  of  the  atonement,  are  members  of  the 
kingdom  of  God ;"  Binney's,  "  Theological  Com- 
pend  Improved,"  a  standard  work  in  the  denom- 
ination, asserts  without  qualification  :  "  The  guilt 
of  original  sin  is  covered  by  the  atonement  and 
is  not  imputed  to  any  of  the  offspring  of  Adam 
until  its  remedy  is  willfully  rejected." 

1  But  in  all  these  standard  works  there  are  state- 
ments not  easily  shown  consistent  with  the  truth  of 
the  character  of  the  atonement  and  the  full  work  of 
the  Second  Adam  as  the  Redeemer.  The  work  of  Dr. 
Wiley,  of  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  on  "Atone- 
ment in  Christ,"  in  speaking  of  the  salvation  of  in- 
fants through  Christ,  says,  "The  question  is  not  with- 


188  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Dr.  Bushnell's  view  of  childhood  in  a  race  re- 
deemed by  Christ,  and  to  be  trained  for  God 
from  the  earHest  Hfe,  is  accepted  as  the  correct 
view  of  truth  by  multitudes  in  the  Congrega- 
tional, and  Presbyterian,  and  Episcopal  and  other 
churches.  And  this  view  has  been  steadily  mak- 
ing progress  in  later  years.  It  is  a  view  that  no 
denominational  lines  confine  or  exclude.  And 
for  this  there  is  cause  for  gratitude  among  all. 

Dr.  Bushnell's  earliest  statements  of  this  truth 
had  been  condemned  by  many  as  heretical  and 
were  out  of  print  before  I  became  personally 
interested  in  the  truth  as  a  subject  of  thought. 
Hence,  I  first  came  to  the  light  without  the  ad- 
out  its  difficulty.  .  .  .  We  must  confess  that  the 
usual  Arminian  treatment  of  this  question  is  not  very 
satisfactory.     It  often  hesitates,  vacillates.     There  is 

a  native  guilt,  but  not  a  guilt  as  of  actual  sin 

This  indecision  is  an  attempt  to  hold  Calvinism 
and  Arminianism  beyond  the  point  of  real  diverg- 
ence, or  from  a  failure  to  give  scientific  complete- 
ness to  the  latter."  Convinced  as  I  am  that  no 
system  of  man-made  doctrine  concerning  spiritual 
and  infinite  truth  can  be  definitely  correct  I  make 
no  attempt  to  conform  my  conviction  of  God's  dis- 
closed truth  to  any  one  or  any  more  than  one  de- 
nominational system  of  belief.  Yet  I  will  not  count 
in  question  the  great  truth  that  Jesus  Christ  does 
more  of  good  to  the  human  race  than  Adam  did  or 
could  have  done  of  evil. 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?     1 89 

vantage  of  his  help  in  that  sphere.  Yet  I  was 
indeed  grateful  to  find  that  he  was  so  far  in 
advance  on  this  matter,  as  in  so  many  others, 
when  God  led  me  out  of  darkness  into  light,  and 
his  statements  confirmed  my  best  views  of  God's 
teachings  on  the  subject,  where  so  many  had 
been  misled  and  were  misleading  others. 

WRONG  TO  CHILDREN  WRONGLD  BY  FAL5L 
VILWS  OF  PARENTS 

While  there  are  still  many  who  cling  to  tradi- 
tional false  views  as  to  the  state  of  childhood  in 
Christ,  or  to  whom  such  false  views  cling,  it  was 
formerly  far  worse.  It  seems  strange  that  even 
within  my  own  memory  there  were  Bible  readers 
and  Bible  teachers  who  could  accept  such  views 
as  were  even  then  held  as  to  the  relation  of 
babes  to  Christ,  and  of  Christ  to  children.  Yet 
there  had  been  steady  gain  and  growth  in  the 
matter  for  years  and  for  generations.  In  view 
of  this  fact  we  should  have  hope  and  courage 
when  we  see  in  how  many  things  progress  against 
error  is  yet  to  be  made  by  Christian  believers. 
Bad  as  things  now  are,  they  used  to  be  much 
worse. 

Even  in  modern  times  it  has  been  thought  that 
a  child  was  to  be  saved,  or  was  to  become  a  child 
of  God,  by  understanding  God's  way  of  salva- 


190  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

tion,  or  by  understanding  some  approved  system 
of  doctrine.  It  has  taken  centuries  to  bring  men 
to  realize  that  it  is  Christ  who  saves,  and  that 
salvation  is  not  compassed  by  intellectual  belief. 
Yet  that  error  was  held  and  pressed  by  men  of 
God  until  within  two  centuries  or  so.  As  illus- 
tration of  the  prevalence  of  the  error  among 
those  forward  in  their  day,  the  expressed  view 
of  so  good  a  man  as  Dr.  Philip  Doddridge  may 
be  cited.  He  was  prominent  among  clergymen 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half  ago  who  thought 
of  children,  taught  children,  and  was  supposed  to 
understand  the  nature  and  possibilities  of  chil- 
dren. 

In  a  sermon  preached  in  1736,  Dr.  Doddridge 
said  coolly  of  children,  say,  five  years  old: 
"  Without  a  miracle  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
much  of  the  Christian  scheme  should  be  under- 
stood by  these  little  creatures,  in  the  first  dawn- 
ings  of  reason,  though  a  few  evangelical  phrases 
may  be  taught  [to  them]  and  sometimes  by  a 
happy  kind  may  be  rightly  applied  [by  them]." 
Yet  Jesus  said  of  the  children  in  arms  that,  *'to 
such  belongeth  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  to  such 
he  lovingly  gave  a  blessing.  Dr.  Doddridge  was 
a  successor  of  the  original  disciples. 

More  than  a  century  and  a  quarter  after  these 
words  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  I  heard  yet  stronger 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     191 

and  more  erroneous  words  on  children  spoken  by 
an  eminent  American  divine.  He  was  a 
clergyman  prominent  from  Philadelphia  to 
Boston.  He  was  addressing  an  audience 
of  parents  and  Sunday-school  teachers  in  a 
Massachusetts  city.  He  explicitly  affirmed 
that  it  was  wrong  to  teach  or  encourage 
a  child  who  had  given  no  evidence  of  a  new  birth, 
and  of  having  been  converted,  to  use  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  No  unconverted,  unregenerate  child  had 
a  right  to  call  God  Father.  Every  child  was 
born  under  condemnation,  and  could  never  be 
anything  else  except  by  a  conscious,  intelligent 
change  of  relation  to  God.  This  eminent  divine 
thought  it  his  duty  to  press  that  view  as  truth. 

It  is  a  known  historical  fact  that  one  of  the 
prominent  objections  to  Sunday-schools  in  the 
earlier  years  of  that  institution  was  the  fear  that 
in  them  children  might  be  led  to  believe  that  they 
could  call  God  Father,  while  yet  under  condem- 
nation as  children  of  Satan.  Even  in  my  day  I 
found  some  parents  opposed  to  having  a  Sunday- 
school  started  in  their  vicinity  because  they 
deemed  it  better  to  have  a  child  grow  up  a 
conscious  enemy  of  God,  obviously  needing  to 
be  wrested  from  the  devil  and  brought  a  new 
convert  to  Christ. 

No  wonder  that  Dr.  Bushnell  was  grieved  as 


192  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  the  common  opinion  concerning  a  child  whom 
many  would  deem  safe  if  he  died  in  infancy,  but 
not  surely  Christ's  as  he  grew  up.  "li  he  [as 
child]  dies  in  infancy,"  says  Dr.  Bushnell,  **  God 
may,  it  is  true,  find  some  way,  possibly,  to  save 
him ;  but  if  he  stays  among  the  living  [until 
years  of  conscious  intelligence]  he  cannot  be  a 
Christian  till  he  is  older."  It  was  this  view  of 
childhood  that  Dr.  Doddridge  seemed  to  have  in 
mind.  ''  The  necessity  of  a  great  spiritual  change 
is  upon  him,  and  yet  he  is  wholly  incapable  of 
the  change!  What  other  being  has  the  good 
Lord  and  Father  of  the  world  left  in  a  condition 
so  pitiful  as  this  of  a  human  child  ?  " 

It  was  one  of  my  own  dear  children,  brought 
up  as  Christ's  from  earliest  consciousness,  who 
came  to  me  grieved  because  of  appeals  to  her  in 
Sunday-school  to  come  to  Christ,  as  though  she 
was  away  from  him. 

"  Father,"  she  said,  "  my  teacher  says  she 
wishes  I'd  come  to  Jesus.  What  does  she  mean  ? 
I  love  Jesus  now  with  all  my  heart."  She  was 
accustomed  to  commune  with  him  daily  as  lov- 
ingly as  with  her  mother.  "  How  will  it  be  any 
different  with  me  when  I've  come  to  Jesus  ?  " 

Yet  that  Sunday-school  teacher  simply  was  as 
Mind  as  to  the  truth  concerning  Christ  as  many 
have  been  since  Dr.  Doddridge's  day,  and  before. 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     193 

Would  that  the  days  of  darkness  had  already 
wholly  passed  away  ! 

Children  of  Christian  parents,  even  in  my  day, 
were  not  always  permitted  to  pray  by  themselves 
as  if  they  had  a  right  to  address  God  as  their 
Father,  before  they  were  old  enough  to  make  a 
confession  of  renewed  life  in  Christ,  and  as  hav- 
ing left  Satan  and  his  work.  A  lovely  Christian 
woman,  wife  of  a  clergyman  in  Connecticut,  in 
whose  house  I  was  visiting,  told  me  of  her  ex- 
perience in  this  line.  When  she  was  but  a  child 
there  was  a  season  of  special  religious  interest  in 
the  community  where  she  was.  While  older  per- 
sons felt  the  influence  of  this,  she  and  a  little 
girl  friend  were  desirous  of  having  a  share  in  it. 
*'But  our  parents  told  us  we  were  too  young  to 
understand  it.     Accordingly,"  she  said : 

"  With  my  little  girl  friend,  I  went  up  into  an 
upper  chamber,  one  afternoon.  We  shut  the 
door,  knowing  that  if  our  parents  discovered  us 
we  should  be  rebuked  for  trifling  with  sacred 
matters.  And  there  we  prayed  to  God,  lovingly 
and  tearfully,  and  we  rejoiced  in  the  privilege. 
Our  parents  couldn't  understand  us,  but  I  believe 
God  did.  And  now,  looking  back  on  that  hour," 
she  said,  "  I  believe  if  ever  I  have  had  full  com- 
munion with  God  I  had  it  then." 

Whose  view  of  children  is  the  more  correct  ? 


194  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Was  it  Jesus'  in  his  time  ?  Or  was  it  his  disciples' 
of  that  day,  or  in  the  day  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  or 
in  those  of  later  days  up  to  the  last  half-century  ? 

Even  young  children  themselves  often  evi- 
dence a  better  comprehension  than  their  parents 
of  the  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  their 
needs  and  longings  and  by  Christ's  love  and 
promises.  A  little  boy  in  the  mission  field  of 
Amoy,  in  China,  who  desired  to  be  counted  in 
Christ's  fold,  was  told  by  some  successor  of 
those  disciples  whom  Jesus  rebuked  that  he  was 
too  small  to  be  counted  one  of  Christ's  flock,  for 
he  might  fall  back,  and  he  replied,  with  better 
sense  than  the  doubter  showed : 

"  Jesus  has  promised  to  carry  the  lambs  in 
his  bosom.  As  I  am  only  a  little  boy,  it  will  be 
easier  for  Jesus  to  carry  me." 

Can  it  be  doubted  that  Christ  welcomes  such 
love  and  trust  ?  What  if  all  the  older  ones  in 
the  fold  evidenced  as  much  ? 

In  a  Christian  land  a  farmer's  boy  who  desired 
to  enter  the  church  fold  was  told  that  he  was 
too  young.  At  this,  when  his  father  told  him  on 
a  cold  night  to  fold  the  farm  sheep  for  the  night, 
the  boy  brought  in  the  sheep,  but  left  a  weak 
little  lamb  out  in  the  cold.  On  being  rebuked 
for  this,  he  said  shrewdly : 

"  Why,  father,  I  thought  the  little  lamb  wasn't 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     195 

old  enough  to  go  into  the  fold  with  the  old 
sheep ;  so  I  left  it  outside  in  the  cold  until  it  gets 
older." 

Another  little  boy,  when  told  he  must  wait 
until  he  was  older  before  being  taken  in,  said, 
with  a  touch  of  wisdom  worthy  to  be  considered 
by  older  persons : 

"  You'd  better  take  me  in  now ;  for  if  I'm  left 
outside  too  long  I  may  not  want  to  come  in  by 
and  by,  when  you  want  me  to." 

A  CHILD-CHRISTIAN  NOT  ENTITLED  TO 
PRIVILLGLS  OF  ADULT  BLULVLRS 

A  child  is  born  as  Christ's,  and  should  be 
counted  and  trained  as  such.  But  a  child  while 
a  child  is  not  a  grown  adult.  A  young  child  is 
not  necessarily  to  have  the  same  food  or  dress 
or  chair  or  table  as  a  grown  person.  This  is  for 
the  child's  true  welfare;  and  a  child  can  be 
enabled  to  see  this,  and  the  reasons  for  it.  Even 
a  lamb,  which  is  entitled  to  the  shelter  of  the 
fold,  may  have  a  special  corner  and  shelter  and 
food  as  better  suited  to  its  needs  than  among  the 
sturdier  sheep.  Thus  with  human  lambs.  Milk 
must  be  given  to  babes  before  they  can  be  fed 
with  meat. 

Even  the  child  Jesus  could  not  have  the  privi- 
lege of  the  earthly  temple  until  he  had  reached 


196  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

his  twelfth  year;  yet  he  was  counted  as  wholly 
God's  child  from  birth.  Any  intelligent  child  can 
be  enabled  to  understand  that  he  is  as  truly 
Christ's  as  are  his  parents,  while  he  is  not  old 
enough  to  share  all  his  parents'  privileges.  To 
show  him  the  truth  is  a  parent's  duty.  Yet  the 
Christian  parent  should  count  his  child  as  truly 
Christ's  as  is  the  parent.  And  here  is  where  is 
the  more  common  and  the  greater  lack. 

HAVING  FAITH  FOR  CHILD  A5  FOR  SELF 

Marriage  was  ordained  of  God  in  order  that 
husband  and  wife,  being  made  one,  might  bring 
children  into  the  world  as  godly  seed,  born  as 
God's  and  to  be  trained  for  God.  Until  a  child 
deliberately  deserts  God,  and  chooses  to  sin,  as 
Adam  chose  to  disobey  God,  the  parent  is  respon- 
sible for  the  God-given  child,  to  be  counted  and 
trained  as  God's. 

Many,  very  many  parents  have  recognized  this 
duty  and  privilege,  and  they  and  their  children 
have  had  reason  to  rejoice  in  consequence.  An 
illustration  of  this  truth  in  a  godly  Scotch  mother 
in  Massachusetts  impressed  me  years  ago.  Her 
excellent  pastor  told  me  the  fact  while  she  was 
still  in  his  parish.  Her  loved  boy,  while  still  in 
her  care,  and  while  she  still  felt  responsible  for 
him,  showed  evil  traits,  and  seemed  inclined  to 


Are  Chltdren  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     197 

go  astray.  But  she  trusted  God  for  her  child  as 
for  herself,  and  she  needed  and  sought  God's 
help  in  the  wayward  child's  training.  And  this 
was  her  faith-filled  prayer  for  the  boy,  as  she 
stated  it  to  her  pastor: 

"  Lord,  I  am  thine,  and  Johnnie's  mine,  and  we 
are  thine;  Lord,  thy  Johnnie's  going  astray. 
Bring  him  back,  Lord ;  bring  him  back.  Lord. 
If  Johnnie's  lost,  in  the  Great  Day  his  blood  will 
I  require  at  thine  hand." 

Such  sturdy  faith  and  holy  boldness  in  a  trust- 
ing parent  God  loves  to  find.  And  God  will  heed 
and  honor  the  spirit  by  which  it  is  prompted. 

Training  is  well  in  child-care,  but  faith  is  bet- 
ter. Earnest  prayer,  even  with  the  wisest  train- 
ing, is  no  substitute  for  firm  faith,  nor  can  it  be 
a  sure  means  of  keeping  the  child  in  the  right 
way.  The  lack  of  such  confident  faith  is  a  lack 
by  which  the  child  may  suffer,  as,  on  the  other 
hand,  such  faith  may  be  a  great  blessing  to  the 
child.  This  truth  is  illustrated  by  a  conversation 
on  the  subject  which  I  had  with  a  valued  friend 
in  New  Jersey.  He  was  the  son  of  an  eminent 
clergyman.  By  his  marriage  he  was  in  close  family 
relation  with  several  clergymen  of  prominence. 
His  home  was  a  choice  Christian  home,  in  which 
was  the  first  little  child,  still  very  young.  As  I 
was  passing  a  night  there,  we  talked  together  of 


198  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

this  great  truth.  He  spoke  of  his  hope  that  his 
child  might  become  Christ's  loved  one. 

"  You  hope  that  he  may  become  Christ's. 
Don't  you  think  he  is  already  so  ?  "  I  asked. 

"  Why,  of  course  I  can't  think  he's  already 
Christ's.  He's  too  young  for  me  to  think  that 
about  him." 

'*  Who  does  he  belong  to  just  now  ?  "  I  asked. 
"  As  I  understand  it,  there  are  only  two  forces 
and  leaders  in  the  universe,  each  striving  to  con- 
trol humanity — God  and  the  Devil.  Which  do 
you  think  just  now  claims  your  child  ?  " 

"  Well,  I  know  that  my  child  was  born 
under  sin,  as  every  child  is ;  but  I  hope  and  pray 
that  he  may  be  brought  to  Christ.  I  pray  for 
that." 

"  So  you  do  pray  for  him,  even  now,  while  he  is 
a  child  under  condemnation  ?  " 

"  Of  course  I  pray  for  him ;  I  pray  constantly 
and  earnestly  that  he  may  be  brought  to  Christ. 
I've  consecrated  him  to  the  Saviour,  and  I  wait 
and  hope." 

"  But  about  him,  as  he  was  born  and  as  he 
still  is,  you  do  not  have  firm  faith  that  he  is,  and 
is  to  be,  Christ's  ?  " 

"  Of  course  I  can't  be  sure  of  that." 

"  Then,  as  I  understand  it,  my  dear  friend,  if 
you  speak  out  frankly  in  your  prayers,  you  have 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?     199 

to  pray  in  substance  somewhat  in  this  way.  Ex- 
cuse me  for  the  blunt  phrasing,  for  I  speak  earn- 
estly and  in  reverence,  but  as  I  understand  you 
to  state  the  case,  you  have  to  pray  this  way: 

" '  Dear  Lord,  I  have  no  right  to  hope  that 
my  child,  born  in  sin,  is  yet  your  child.  But  I 
pray  that  you'll  keep  your  eye  on  him,  and  when 
the  time  comes  that  he's  old  enough  to  become 
yours,  you'll  take  him  from  the  Devil  and  make 
him  your  child ;  for  I  don't  want  that  boy  to  be 
lost/ '' 

"  No,  that's  not  the  way  I  pray  now ;  but  how 
would  you  have  me  pray  ?  "  said  my  friend,  the 
young  father. 

"  As  you  are  God's,  and  God  has  given  you 
that  child,  you  have  a  full  and  unmistakable  right 
to  go  to  God  with  his  gift,  that  child,  and  to  say, 
*  Here  am  I  and  this  child  whom  thou  hast  given 
me,'  trusting  God  for  your  child  as  you  trust  him 
for  yourself.  Going  in  any  other  way  is  not  con- 
sistent with  your  privilege  in  Christ." 

With  this  beginning  of  conversation  on  the 
subject,  we  talked  until  far  into  the  night.  Then 
we  kneeled  together,  and  that  father  committed 
himself  and  his  loved  child  afresh  to  God,  ask- 
ing help  to  be  faithful  to  that  little  child  of  God. 
And  from  that  hour,  as  he  often  afterwards  said, 
he  had  new  faith  and  joy  as  he  sought  to  honor 


200  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

God  in  being  faithful  to  God  and  to  God's  dear 
one.  God  never  fails  a  parent  who  thus  trusts 
him. 

Many  a  father  has  thus  trusted  God  for  him- 
self and  for  his  children.  Even  within  my  own 
sphere  of  observation  I  have  known  parents  to 
joy  in  such  trust  for  their  children  and  their 
fjrandchildren  without  any  room  for  doubt  and 
wavering.  If  faith  holds  firm,  God,  who  has 
promised,  never  fails  the  trusting  one.  But  with 
the  best  training,  faith  is  necessary  to  make  it 
effective  for  good.  God,  not  good  training,  is 
our  hope  for  our  children. 

A  troubled  Christian  mother  sent  for  me  in 
great  distress.  Her  only  son  had  been  for  a  time 
wayward  and  dissipated.  She  had  prayed  for 
him  earnestly  and  constantly.  After  a  while  he 
had  been  brought  into  the  church  and  had  be- 
come an  active  Christian  worker.  This  gave  her 
joy  unspeakable.  But  now  he  had  fallen  back 
again.  He  had  seemingly  abandoned  his  faith, 
and  had  become  a  reprobate.  He  had  left  his 
home,  had  enlisted  in  the  navy,  and  had  sailed  for 
the  Far  East.  The  poor  mother  was  almost 
broken-hearted  and  was  well-nigh  in  despair. 

I  asked  that  mother  if  she  had  less  reason  to 
trust  God  now  than  before,  as  she  prayed  for  the 
boy  of  her  love.    She  replied  that,  of  course,  she 


Are  Children  Bom  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?    201 

hadn't  as  much  ground  for  faith  now  that  her  son 
seemed  a  reprobate  as  while  he  was  an  active 
Christian  worker. 

"  Is  the  difference  in  God,  or  in  your  boy  ?  "  I 
asked. 

"  The  difference  is  in  my  boy,"  she  said,  "  and 
that's  what's  troubling  me." 

"  On  whom  did  your  faith  rest,  when  your 
boy  was  doing  best  ?  " 

'*  On  God,  of  course." 

"  And  has  God  changed  ?  " 

**  Of  course  not." 

"  Then  why  is  your  faith  lessened  ?  " 

"  Because  of  my  poor  boy's  failures." 

"  Then  you  are  looking  at  your  boy  as  the 
ground  of  your  faith,  instead  of  at  God." 

"  Do  you  mean  to  suggest,"  said  the  anxious 
mother,  *'  that  even  now,  while  my  poor  boy  is  in 
his  present  state,  I  can  look  up  to  God  and  pray 
for  my  boy  as  trustfully  as  I  prayed  for  him 
while  he  was  active  in  Christian  work  ?  Do  you 
mean  to  suggest  that  ?  " 

"  If  your  faith  rests  on  God  for  your  God- 
given  boy,  you  can  pray  to  God  for  your  boy  just 
as  confidently  now  as  before  for  all  that  he  can 
do  for  you  or  your  boy.  But  you  must  look  to 
God  and  not  at  your  boy  for  hope  while  you 
pray." 


202  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

"  Then  I'll  do  that,"  said  the  anxious  mother. 
And  she  turned  again  to  God  in  need  and  in 
trust. 

Two  months  or  so  after  that,  that  mother  sent 
for  me  again.  She  had  received  a  letter  from 
her  son  that  gladdened  her  heart.  It  was  from 
the  vessel  he  was  on  in  the  Chinese  seas.  It 
was  a  letter  full  of  penitence  and  of  good  pur- 
poses, and  of  hope  and  trust.  It  told  a  touching 
story. 

About  the  time  when  the  mother  turned  anew 
to  God,  anxiously  but  in  trust,  in  her  New  Eng- 
land home — before,  of  course,  he  could  have  had 
any  word  from  her  about  it — as  he  was  on  the 
deck  one  sunny  afternoon  in  those  far-off  Chi- 
nese waters,  a  call  seemed  to  come  to  him  from 
God  summoning  him  to  turn  from  his  evil  courses 
to  his  better  self,  and  to  God  and  to  his  old  faith 
in  God. 

Overpowered  by  his  feelings,  that  prodigal  son 
went  down  into  the  forecastle  and  prostrated 
himself  before  God,  confessing  his  sin,  and  ask- 
ing for  pardon  and  help  to  do  differently.  And 
then  he  wrote  as  a  penitent  child  to  his  mother, 
asking  her  to  pray  for  him,  telling  of  his  sorrow 
and  of  his  new  purpose  of  living  a  new  life  by 
God's  help.  That  mother  gained,  in  consequence, 
new  reason  for  having  faith  in  God  for  her  son 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?    203 

as  for  herself.  Would  that  every  parent  had 
learned  that  lesson  as  thoroughly  as  she  learned 
it  !  That  returning  prodigal  became  again  active 
in  Christ's  work;  and  in  that  work  he  was  en- 
gaged when  God  called  him  away  from  earth 
with  its  temptations.  Such  faith  as  that 
mother's  for  child  as  well  as  for  self  God  always 
enjoins  and  honors. 

When  a  troubled  father  came  to  Jesus  with  a 
demon-possessed  child  and  asked  earnestly  for 
help,  if  it  were,  indeed,  possible  for  Jesus  to  give 
help,  Jesus  suggested  that  the  question  was  not 
whether  Jesus  had  power,  but  whether  the  father 
could  believe  for  his  child  as  well  as  for  himself. 
"All  things  are  possible  to  him  that  [thus]  be- 
lieveth."  Then  that  anxious  father  cried  out 
earnestly,  *'  I  believe  [for  my  child  and  for  my- 
self] :  help  thou  mine  unbelief."  And  the  needed 
help  was  given.  (Mark  9:  17-25.)  That  is  God's 
way  with  parents  who  trust  him  for  themselves 
and  for  his  children. 

LEARNING  FROM  CHILDREN  AS  WELL  AS 
TEACHING  THEM 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  devoted  Christian  believer 
to  teach  little  children  in  Christ's  service.  But 
it  is  still  more  positively  a  believer's  duty  to  learn 
from  little  children.     Few  of  us  are  competent 


204  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  be  teachers  of  children,  but  all  of  us,  even  the 
wisest  and  most  experienced,  can  learn  important 
lessons  from  little  children.  On  this  point  we 
are  assured  by  the  wisest  Teacher  who  ever 
lived,  who  understood  little  children,  and  who 
knew  what  was  in  man  and  all  that  men  knew. 
Jesus  set  the  little  children  as  an  example  and 
pattern  before  his  grown-up  disciples ;  not  his 
grown-up  disciples  as  the  example  and  pattern  of 
little  children.  Jesus,  pointing  to  a  veritable 
flesh  and  blood  child,  said  to  the  wisest  of  his 
selected  and  trained  disciples,  "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  except  ye  turn,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  (Matt.  i8:  3.)  ''Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
therein."  (Mark  10:  15.)  And  this  was  spoken 
of  children  in  arms.  Not  much  doubt  as  to  what 
was  pointed  to  as  the  pattern,  to  be  learned  a 
lesson  from,  there.  Some  of  the  wisest  men  of 
God  since  that  day  have  learned  that  lesson  over 
again,  and  retaught  it  to  others. 

Dr.  Horace  Bushnell,  who  was  one  of  the 
profoundest  religious  thinkers,  while  he  was  one 
of  the  simplest-hearted  and  most  childlike  men  of 
God  in  modern  times,  said  of  this  truth,  and  it  is 
good   to   remember   having   heard   him   say   it: 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?    205 

"  The  true  knowledge  of  God,  as  in  friendship,  is 
[assumed  by  many  to  be]  possible  to  adults,  but 
not  to  children ;  whereas,  the  real  fact  is,  that 
children  are  a  great  deal  more  capable  of  it.  The 
boy-child  Samuel  could  hear  the  call  [of  God] 
when  Eli  could  not.  Children  may  not  think  the 
gospel  experiences  as  well,  but  they  can  have 
them  a  great  deal  more  easily.  Tell  the  children 
how  present  God  is,  how  loving  he  is,  how  close 
by  he  is  in  all  good  thought,  and  they  will  take 
the  sense  in  a  great  deal  better  than  the  adult 
soul,  that  is  gone  a-doubting  so  far  and  specu- 
lated his  mind  half  away  in  the  false  intellectuali- 
ties miscalled  reason.  Ah  !  my  friends,  of  these, 
*  of  such  as  these  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;'  so 
Christ  says  and  we  make  almost  nothing  of  it. 

"  These  children  can  make  room  for  more 
gospel  than  we,  and  take  in  all  most  precious 
thoughts  of  God  more  easily.  The  very  highest 
and  most  spiritual  things  are  a  great  deal  closer 
to  them  than  to  us.  Let  us  not  wonder,  and  not 
be  offended,  if  they  break  out  in  hosannas  on 
just  looking  into  the  face  of  Jesus,  when  the 
great  multitude  of  priests  and  apostles  are  dumb 
along  the  road,  as  the  ass  on  which  he  rides." 

Dr.  Charles  Wadsworth,  of  Philadelphia  and 
San  Francisco,  who  was  a  native  of  the  same 
town  in   Litchfield   County,  in   Connecticut,   as 


206  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Horace  Bushnell  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  says 
with  like  forcefulness  :  "  The  intellectual  opin- 
ions, or  judgments,  little  children  form  of  high 
theological  mysteries  are  nearer  to  the  realities, 
and  so  truer,  than  the  metaphysical  elaborations 
of  the 'ambitious  rabbis  of  theology. 

"  For  example,  I  come  to  one  of  these  men  of 
academic  condition,  and  I  ask,  *  What  is  God  ? ' 
and  he  answers,  '  God  is  a  self-existent,  inde- 
pendent, absolute,  infinite  spirit ;  without  emo- 
tions for  emotion  implies  succession ;  without 
dwelling-place,  for  pure  spirit  has  no  relations  to 
position;  without,  indeed,  any  resemblances  or 
analogies  by  which  we  can  figure  or  conceive  of 
him. '  Now,  this  may  be  all  very  profound  and 
philosophic,  but,  alas,  not  very  comforting. 

"  God  is  what  ?  An  absolute  and  infinite 
Spirit  !  Ah,  me  !  That  mysterious  and  awful 
word  spirit  !  No  marvel  that  the  disciples  on 
Tiberias  were  troubled,  as  through  the  wild  night 
comes  a  wondrous  form  walking  on  the  billows, 
and  they  thought  it  was  a  spirit.  And  so  when 
I  look  forth  on  the  immensities  of  the  universe, 
struggling  to  behold  the  invisible  and  to  com- 
pass the  incomprehensible,  and  catching  glimpses, 
as  it  were,  of  an  absolute,  infinite  spirit,  and  am 
told  that  it  is  God,  then  I  startle  and  stand  back 
in  the  wild  night  as  the  mighty  seas  roar  around 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed  ?    207 

me,  as  from  the  forthcoming  of  some  awful  and 
incomprehensible  phantom. 

"  But  sick  of  this  vain  searching  to  find  out 
God  unto  perfection,  I  turn  from  the  school  of 
the  rabbis  and  find  me  a  little  child  in  its  unam- 
bitious and  earnest  instincts,  and  I  say  again, 
'  What  is  God  ? '  and  the  child  answers,  '  God 
is  my  Heavenly  Father.'  And  I  know  better 
now,  for  I  know  as  much  as  I  can  know  now. 
God  the  Spirit  is  my  Father  in  Heaven." 

Dr.  J.  C.  Ryle,  of  England,  who  was  the  first 
Bishop  of  Liverpool,  says  in  the  same  line: 
"  I  suspect  we  have  no  idea  how  much  a  little 
child  can  take  in  of  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  glorious  gospel.  .  .  .  There  are  wonderful 
examples  of  what  a  child  can  attain  to  even  at 
three  years  old." 

And  Charles  H.  Spurgeon,  the  famous  London 
preacher,  adds :  "  In  fact,  children  are  capable 
of  understanding  some  things  in  early  life  which 
we  hardly  understand  afterward.  Children  have 
eminently  a  simplicity  of  faith.  Simplicity  is  akin 
to  the  highest  knowledge ;  indeed,  we  know  not 
that  there  is  much  distinction  between  the  sim- 
plicity of  a  child  and  the  genius  of  the  profound- 
est  mind." 

Who  of  us,  who  has  had  much  to  do  with  little 
children,  has  not  had  light  thrown  on  the  great- 


208  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

est  truths  of  revelation  and  of  spiritual  knowl- 
edge by  the  keen  insight  and  the  simple  faith  of 
the  little  ones  !  A  learned  divine  told  an 
acquaintance  of  mine  that  when  he,  as  a  theolo- 
gian and  a  preacher,  was  puzzled  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  a  Bible  passage,  and  confused  with  its 
various  renderings  by  learned  commentators,  he 
was  accustomed  to  read  that  Bible  passage  over 
to  his  little  grandchild,  and  ask  her  what  it  meant, 
or  how  she  understood  it.  Her  direct  and  faith- 
filled  answer  would,  in  many  a  case,  open  up  to 
him  the  glorious  truth,  as  he  had  not  perceived 
it  before.  Was  Jesus  mistaken  about  children 
as  the  best  teachers  for  his  disciples  ? 

A  little  boy  whom  I  knew,  while  he  was  scarce 
three  years  old,  was  invited  into  a  neighbor's  to 
the  mid-day  meal.  As  he  sat  down  with  his  hosts 
at  their  table,  he  observed  that  they  did  not  ask 
a  blessing  on  the  meal.  When  they  pressed  him 
to  take  food,  he  said  quietly,  "  I  always  ask  a 
blessing  before  I  eat."  Then,  seeing  that  no  one 
seemed  ready  to  perform  that  office,  he  said, 
"  I'll  do  it  myself.'*  .And  bowing  his  head,  he 
reverently  and  simply  thanked  God  for  the  food 
and  asked  his  blessing  on  it.  He  used  no  set 
form  of  words,  but  as  if  in  full  appreciation 
of  the  meaning  of  his  act,  he  spoke  as  a 
grateful  child  to  his  Father.    He  thought  this  no 


Are  Children  Born  Condemned  or  Redeemed?    209 

unusual  act,  but  his  host  felt  the  lesson  and  told 
his  neighbors  of  the  lesson  the  little  child  had 
taught.  How  often  in  some  such  way  a  little 
child  shall  lead  those  who  should  be  led  ! 

A  TRUTH  TO  BL  RLMEMBLRLD 

Every  child  of  man,  from  the  first  child, 
whether  of  heathen  or  of  Christian  parents,  has 
been  born  into  a  redeemed  race  through  the  sec- 
ond Adam,  as  the  race  came  under  condemna- 
tion in  the  first  Adam.  (Rom.  5  :  15  ;  i  Cor  15  : 
22,  45.)  With  the  weakness  and  evil  bent  of  the 
outer  man  by  inheritance,  a  child  uncared  for  is 
likely  to  sin  of  himself  as  Adam  sinned.  But  if 
trustful  redeemed  parents  include  their  God-given 
children  v.ith  themselves  in  their  prayers  and 
service  and  their  faith,  God  will  never  desert 
or  fail  either  parent  or  child.  And  the  nexus  of 
such  grace  is  the  parent's  faith.  Therefore,  let 
parents  thank  God  and  trust.  God  will  never 
desert  or  fail  them  so  long  as  God  is  God. 


XXII 
BIBLE  REST  NOT   INACTION 

A  favorite  idea  of  rest  is  that  of  quitting  work, 
and  of  having  nothing  to  do  but  to  rest.  But  a 
better  idea  of  rest  is  that  of  having  strength  and 
abiHty  to  work,  and  to  keep  on  working  without 
breaking  down  or  having  a  hard  time  of  it.  The 
popular  view  of  rest  from  work  is  very  different 
from  the  Bible  view  of  rest  in  work;  but  these 
two  views  of  rest  are  commonly  and  lamentably 
confounded. 

For  example,  the  invitation  of  Jesus,  "  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest, "  is  frequently  quoted  as 
though  it  read,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  are 
weary,  and  I  will  give  you  rest"  (Matt,  ii: 
28-30).  Tired  souls  and  tired  bodies  are  tak- 
ing comfort  in  the  thought  that  they  have  done 
quite  as  much  work  as  they  ought  to,  and  that 
it  is  time  for  them  to  have  a  vacation  or  an  out- 
ing.   Therefore  they  sing  languidly,  but  in  hope : 

"There  is  rest  for  the  weary, 
There  is  rest  for  me." 
But    while    vacations    and    outings    have    their 
place  in  life,  the  rest  to  which  Jesus  invites  hard 
210 


Bible  Rest  Not  Inaction  211 

workers  is  not  rest  from  work,  but  rest  in  work. 
"  Take  my  yoke  upon  you, ''  he  says,  ''  and  learn 
of  me ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye 
shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls."  (Matt,  ii: 
29.)  Putting  your  neck  into  a  yoke  is  not  an 
outing,  but  an  inning.  Pulling  away  more  vigor- 
ously at  a  heavy  load  is  not  a  vacation,  but  it  is 
the  sort  of  rest  that  Jesus  summons  to  in  his 
service. 

The  more  popular  idea  of  this  invitation  of 
Jesus  is  indicated  in  the  familiar  words : 

"  I  heard  the  voice  of  Jesus  say, 
'Come  unto  me  and  rest; 
Lay  down,  thou  weary  one,  lay  down 
Thy  head  upon  my  breast.' " 

But  the  Gospel  invitation  says  nothing  about 
laying  down  the  head  on  the  Saviour's  breast ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  invites  to  the  putting  of  the  head 
through  the  Saviour's  yoke.  The  invitation  is 
not  to  lazy  swinging  in  a  spiritual  hammock,  or 
to  tired  lounging  in  a  spiritual  easy-chair,  it  is 
to  a  vigorous  tugging  under  a  spiritual  yoke- 
beam  ;  and  there  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world 
between  these  two.  If,  indeed,  there  be  any 
invitation  in  the  Gospel  pages  to  these  more 
attractive  indulgences  it  is  not  found  here.  Over 
the  very  entrance  to  this  house  of  refreshing 


212  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

there  is  inscribed  a  warning,  like  that  which  we 
see  at  the  doorway  of  many  a  busy  shop  or 
factory,  "  No  Admittance  except  for  Workmen.  " 

Yet  even  so  exact  a  thinker  and  so  careful  a 
writer  as  Professor  Henry  Drummond,  in  his  de- 
lightful and  widely  popular  treatise  entitled  "Pax 
Vobiscum,'*  seriously  makes  the  mistake  of  sup- 
posing that  the  invitation  of  Jesus  is  to  the  tired 
and  weary  instead  of  to  the  overburdened  yet 
vigorous  and  determined  hard  worker.  He  even 
says  that  it  is  a  "  direct  appeal  for  all  to  come  to 
Him  who  had  not  made  much  of  life,  who 
were  weary  and  heavy  laden. "  And  many  a 
layman  and  minister  has  made  the  same  mistake 
as  Professor  Drummond. 

There  are  two  Greek  words  alike  translated 
"  rest "  in  the  New  Testament,  one  of  which 
means  a  "  let  up  "  of  toil,  and  the  other  a  "  let 
down "  from  toil.  The  word  here  translated 
"  rest "  signifies  a  let  up  of  labor,  or  an  uplift  of 
it,  in  order  to  its  better  prosecution.  The  other 
word  indicates  a  let  down  or  cessation  of  labor. 
Here,  therefore,  the  idea  would  seem  to  be  of  a 
rest  that  is  a  refreshing,  or  of  a  relief  in  labor, 
rather  than  of  a  rest  that  is  a  relief  from  labor. 
Indeed,  the  Douay  version  of  the  Bible,  in  use 
by  Roman  Catholics,  better  translates  this  invita- 
tion, "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 


Bible  Rest  Not  Inaction  213 

burdened,  and  I  will  refresh  you ;  "  and  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  as  well  as  the  American,  Prayer- 
Book,  also  gives  "  refresh  "  for  "  rest." 

It  is  a  refreshing  of  the  soul  through  a 
change  in  the  spirit  and  methods  of  work,  and 
not  through  a  cessation  and  an  abandonment  of 
toil,  that  our  Lord  indicates  as  the  rest  which  he 
proffers  to  the  hard  worker  in  his  service.  When 
Jesus  found  a  helpless  cripple  by  the  Pool  of 
Bethesda  (John  5:  1-17)  bowed  down  under 
the  weight  of  his  burden  of  disease,  he  called  him 
to  rest  by  saying,  "  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed, 
and  walk"  (John  5:  8),— as  if  he  would  say, 
"  You  have  worked  long  enough  doing  nothing ; 
now  find  refreshing  in  pleasurable  labor.  Up, 
and  carry  the  bed  on  which  you  have  been  car- 
ried all  these  years."  And  that  was  better  for 
that  poor  cripple  than  a  whole  summer  of 
hammock-swinging  in  the  mountains  or  by  the 
seashore  would  have  been.  This  act  of  healing 
was  performed  on  the  sabbath  day,  and  the  Jews 
complained  of  Jesus  because  he  told  the  man  to 
rest  working  instead  of  to  rest  doing  nothing. 
But  Jesus  said  that  his  Father  works  on  while 
resting,  and  that  the  truest  pattern  of  rest,  for 
God  or  for  man,  is  in  fitting  and  timely  work. 

Our   Lord   says   to  those   who  are   well-nigh 
worked  to  death  in  the  field  of  their  daily  labor, 


214  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

and  who  are  staggering  under  an  inevitable  bur- 
den that  threatens  to  crush  them  to  the  earth : 
"  Come  unto  me,  and  I  will  refresh  you.  Cease 
to  count  that  burden  yours.  Let  it  be  mine.  Put 
your  neck  through  the  bow  of  my  yoke.  Fit 
your  shoulders  to  my  yokebeam.  Fasten  your 
burden  to  that.  I  will  share  it  with  you.  Look 
at  me,  and  see  how  I  pull  a  load,  uncomplainingly 
and  in  submissive  determination.  Follow  my 
example ;  imitate  my  spirit  as  a  worker ;  and  you 
shall  have  such  refreshing  as  will  give  you  new 
life  and  new  strength ;  for  to  be  in  my  service, 
wearing  my  yoke,  is  to  find  hard  work  easy  and 
a  heavy  load  light.  " 

In  proportion  as  a  yoke  fits  and  suits  the 
wearer,  the  burden  drawn  by  it  seems  light ;  and 
the  spirit  in  which  one  wears  the  yoke  determines 
the  ease  with  which  it  sets  on  him.  Many  a 
bright  lad  who  would  think  his  a  hard  yoke  if 
he  were  called  to  sit  at  the  front  window  of  his 
father's  house  for  three  hours  of  a  summer's  day, 
to  keep  tally  of  the  loads  of  coal  being  put  into 
the  home  cellar,  would  count  it  an  easy  yoke 
that  fastened  him  for  the  same  length  of  time  to 
the  "  bleaching  boards  "  of  the  athletic  grounds, 
under  a  scorching  sun  in  June,  or  in  a  cold  rain 
in  November,  checking  the  score  in  a  sharply 
contested  game  between  rival  universities. 


Bible  Rest  Not  Inaction  215 

Young  people  and  older  ones  seem  to  find  re- 
freshing, hour  after  hour,  in  golf  links  and  on 
bicycles,  at  billiards  or  bowling,  in  whist  or 
progressive  eucher,  at  theaters  or  dances,  when 
they  would  grow  weary  and  exhausted  in  one- 
quarter  of  the  time  in  hospital  visiting,  in  Sun- 
day-school teaching,  in  prayer-meeting  attend- 
ance, or  even  in  study  or  reading.  Hard  work 
that  is  called  pleasure  is  easy  work.  Easy  work 
that  is  counted  dry  duty  is  hard  work. 

Love  gives  rest  in  work,  as  better  than  rest 
from  work.  When  Jacob  found  that  he  could 
win  his  loved  Rachel  by  seven  years  of  added  toil 
for  her  hard-dealing  father,  *'  Jacob  served  seven 
years  for  Rachel ;  and  they  seemed  unto  him  but 
a  few  days,  for  the  love  he  had  to  her.*'  (Gen. 
29:  20.)  Love  for  his  country  gives  a  soldier 
rest  in  his  most  toilsome  service  for  that  coun- 
try. Abounding  love  for  any  person  or  object 
gives  rest  in  needed  toil  for  that  object  or  person. 
Love  for  Christ  gives  refreshing  continually  to 
those  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  in  his  serv- 
ice. In  the  pursuit  of  pleasure,  of  wealth,  or  of 
fame,  "  even  the  youths  shall  faint  and  be  weary, 
and  the  young  men  shall  utterly  fall:  but  they 
that  wait  on  Jehovah  shall  renew  their 
strength;  they  shall  mount  up  with  wings  as 
eagles;  they  shall  run,  and  not  be  weary;  they 


216  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

shall  walk,  and  not  faint"  (Isaiah  40:  30,  31)  ; 
they  shall  rest  in  labor,  rather  than  rest  from 
labor. 


XXIII 

BUSY  MARTHAS  NEVER  GOOD 
HOUSEKEEPERS 

Worry  is  never  a  help  in  any  proper  occupation 
of  man  or  woman.  It  is  a  hindrance  in  any  and 
every  Hne  of  practical  service.  PecuHarly  is  it 
true  that  in  housekeeping,  where  woman  is  at  her 
best,  and  where  her  power  is  greatest  for  good  to 
all  those  who  are  within  the  sacred  circle  of  home 
influence  as  permanent  members  or  occasional 
visitors,  worry  and  fretting  and  trouble  of  mind 
are  only  disturbing  elements,  tending  to  the 
lessening  of  the  matron's  power,  and  to  the  dis- 
comfort of  all  who  are  in  any  way  dependent  on 
her  for  comfort  or  supply.  On  the  contrary, 
quietness  of  mind,  restfulness  of  spirit,  and  com- 
posure of  manner,  are  elements  of  power  in  a 
housekeeper,  and  of  good  to  all  who  are  affected' 
by  her  efforts  or  labors. 

This  would  seem  to  be  an  indisputable  truth, 
yet  it  is  not  universally  accepted,  nor  is  it  even 
believed  by  all  who  seriously  consider  the  ques- 
tion as  a  question.  A  proof  of  this  assertion  is 
found  in  the  Bible  narrative  of  the  two  kinds  of 

217 


218  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

women, — the  restless,  worrying  one,  and  the 
placid,  trustful  one :  Martha  and  Mary  in  the 
home  in  Bethany, — and  in  the  ordinary  comments 
on  those  two  by  the  average  reader,  and  even  by 
many  a  preacher  or  commentator.  This  makes 
the  whole  subject  one  worthy  of  careful  con- 
sideration by  all  who  would  know  God's  will 
tor  good  women  as  the  best  part  of  God's  crea- 
tion, and  also  for  men,  who  are  lower  down  on 
the  scale.  Many  a  Bible  reader  actually  seems  to 
be  of  the  opinion  that  the  worrying  woman  was 
the  better  housekeeper  of  these  two. 

That  Bethany  home  was  one  of  the  homes  of 
Jesus, — a  home  of  sacred  friendship,  a,  home 
where  Jesus  was  always  welcome,  a  home  in  con- 
nection with  which  we  know  more  of  the  tenderer 
side  of  his  human  and  social  nature  than  we  learn 
from  any  other  portion  of  his  life  story.  On  one 
occasion,  when  Jesus  came  to  that  home  needing 
human  sympathy,  both  sisters  wanted  to  do  him 
honor.  Mary  recognized  him  as  Master  and 
Teacher,  as  something  more  than  an  ordinary 
guest,  and  she  promptly  took  her  place  at  his 
feet, — the  Oriental  position  of  an  appreciative 
pupil, — ready  to  hear  and  heed  his  words. 
Martha,  like  the  ordinary  Oriental  hostess,  set 
herself  to  prepare  food  for  her  guest.  Without 
stopping  to  inquire  what  was  his  special  need, 


Busy  Marthas  Never  Good  Housekeepers        219 

she  began  to  work  and  to  worry  over  her  plans 
of  accustomed  hospitable  provision. 

It  was  at  this  point  that  the  unlovely  and  un- 
helpful side  of  Martha  showed  itself,  and  called 
out  a  rebuke  from  Jesus.  Because  of  that  cen- 
sure of  Jesus  it  is  our  duty  to  recognize  the  reason 
for  it.  To  Martha,  the  restful  inaction  of  Mary 
at  the  feet  of  Jesus  was  inexcusable.  In  the  free- 
dom and  familiarity  of  friendship,  but  none  the 
less  inexcusable  on  that  account,  Martha  bustled 
into  the  presence  of  Jesus,  and  rudely  rebuked 
him,  as  it  were,  for  seeming  to  aid  and  approve 
her  sister's  lack  of  helpfulness. 

''  Lord,  dost  thou  not  care  that  my  sister  did 
leave  me  to  serve  alone?  bid  her  therefore  that 
she  help  me  "  (Luke  lo:  40). 

Now,  apart  from  any  question  of  the  relative 
qualities  of  the  two  sisters,  will  any  one  say  that 
this  act  of  Martha's  was  courteous  and  consider- 
ate toward  her  guest?  Would  it  be  polite  or 
kindly  or  proper  toward  a  guest  in  your  house, 
whom  you  were  entertaining,  or  preparing  to  en- 
tertain, to  burst  in  upon  him  when  he  was  talking 
with  another  member  of  the  family,  and  to  sug- 
gest to  him  bluntly  that  he  ought  to  know  better 
than  to  keep  away  from  her  proper  work  in  the 
household  a  needed  member  of  the  family  with 
whom  he  was  conversing?     Can  a  woman  be 


220  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

called  a  good  housekeeper  who  would  conduct 
herself  in  this  way  as  a  hostess  ?  How  did  Jesus 
seem  to  look  at  this  ?  He  never  made  a  mistake 
on  such  a  point  or  on  any  other.  What  did  he 
say? 

"The  Lord  answered  [Martha]  and  said  unto 
her,  Martha,  Martha,  thou  art  anxious  and 
troubled  about  many  things ;  but  one  thing  is 
needful :  for  Mary  hath  chosen  the  good  part, 
which  shall  not  be  taken  away  from  her  "  (Luke 
lo:  41,  42). 

In  these  words  Jesus  evidently  reproved  Mar- 
tha and  approved  Mary  for  their  relative  courses 
of  action  in  this  matter.  However  we  may  won- 
der that  he  did  so,  we  shall  have  to  admit  that 
this  was  his  course.  And  if  we  examine  yet 
more  closely,  we  shall  see  that  his  words  were 
eminently  consistent  with  his  other  teachings. 
To  be  "  cumbered,"  as  Jesus  said  Martha  was, 
is,  as  the  Greek  word  means,  to  "  be  distracted," 
to  be  drawn  this  way  and  that,  instead  of  being 
intent  on  the  one  thing  to  be  done.  Even  in 
getting  a  dinner,  or  in  doing  anything  else,  Mar- 
tha, in  the  exercise  of  this  trait,  could  not  give 
her  whole  attention  to  the  one  thing  she  had  to 
do.  In  this  Martha  lacked  the  main  essential 
of  a  good  housekeeper — the  ability  to  give  her 
undivided  attention  to  the  one  thing  she  had  to 


Busy  Marthas  Never  Good  Housekeepers        221 

do  for  the  time  being.  This  is  clearly  implied 
or  included  in  the  rebuke  of  Jesus.  Again,  to  be 
"  anxious/'  as  the  Revision  reads,  or  to  be  **  care- 
ful," as  the  old  version  gave  it,  and  ''  troubled  " 
about  many  things,  is  to  be  perplexed  and  in  a 
tumult  as  to  pressing  duty.  That,  surely,  was 
not  right  in  Martha,  as  Jesus  plainly  pointed  out 
her  error.  We  are  distinctly  told  not  to  be  anx- 
ious or  to  be  troubled  at  any  time,  and  the  house- 
keeper or  the  business  man  who  fails  at  this  point 
fails  in  a  vital  matter. 

In  the  question  brought  before  Jesus  by  Mar- 
tha, as  to  her  course  in  comparison  with  Mary, 
he  does  not  hesitate  to  render  an  explicit  de- 
cision. He  rebukes  Martha's  course  in  every 
particular  that  he  touches  on  without  saying  a 
word  of  approval  of  her.  He  unqualifiedly  com- 
mends Mary's  course  without  a  word  of  censure 
for  her.  Is  not  this  finally  conclusive  as  to  the 
point  at  issue  ?     One  would  think  so. 

But  elsewhere  it  is  also  said  that  "  Jesus  loved 
Martha,  and  her  sister,  and  Lazarus "  (John 
II:  5).  So  he  did,  but  that  does  not  in  itself 
imply  that  he  commends  in  all  things  the  course 
of  any  one  of  the  three.  It  is  also  said  that 
Jesus  loved  the  young  man  who  lacked  the  one 
thing  needful  according  to  the  testimony  of  Jesus. 
Jesus  loved  Martha,  not  because  she  was  a  good 


222  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

housekeeper,  nor  yet  because  she  failed  of  being 
so,  but  because  he  is  so  loving  that  he  loves  even 
those  who  lack  much. 

The  specific  faults  of  worrying  and  being  drawn 
away  from  the  one  duty  of  the  hour,  and  of  being 
over  anxious,  that  Jesus  pointed  out  in  Martha, 
are  as  clearly  reprehended  and  warned  against 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  elsewhere  as 
are  theft  and  murder;  yet,  strange  to  say,  Mar- 
tha is  often  commended  by  confessing  Christians, 
not  in  spite  of  her  faults,  but  as  if  those  very 
faults  were  admirable.  Comfort-loving  husbands 
sometimes  think  of  Mary  as  a  pious  do-nothing, 
who  might  be  fitted  for  a  high  place  in  the  future 
life,  but  who  was  not  fitted  for  this  life.  Martha, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  considered  by  them  as  the 
sort  of  practical  housekeeper  who  would  have 
the  dinner  ready  on  time,  and  the  rooms  swept, 
and  the  beds  made.  In  their  opinion,  she  is  the 
kind  of  housekeeper  for  the  average  home.  Some 
active  and  efficient  wives  and  housekeepers  are 
even  willing  to  speak  of  themselves  frankly  as 
"  busy  Marthas,"  when  they  would  never  want  to 
be  called  "  lively  Sapphiras."  This  they  do,  not 
by  way  of  admitting  their  unworthiness  and  in- 
competence, but  in  the  thought  that  they  are 
claiming  a  share  of  real  merit. 

Even  scholarly  Christian  commentators,  who 


Busy  Marthas  Never  Good  Housekeepers        223 

are  supposed  to  have  examined  the  original  text, 
incline  to  suggest  that  there  is  something  to  be 
said  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  although  Jesus 
seems  to  have  considered  but  one  side  as  worthy 
of  his  approval.  Thus  one  of  these  commenta- 
tors says  :  "  The  one  [sister]  represents  the  con- 
templative, the  other  the  active,  style  of  the 
Christian  character.  A  church  full  of  Marys 
would  be  as  great  an  evil  as  a  church  full  of  Mar- 
thas. Both  are  wanted,  each  to  be  the  comple- 
ment of  the  other." 

Only  think  of  it !  A  church  full  of  the  sort  of 
persons  whose  ways  Jesus  commended  would  be 
as  great  an  evil  as  a  church  full  of  those  persons 
who  possess  the  characteristics  which  Jesus  dis- 
approved !  Away  with  such  misconceptions  and 
perversions  of  the  texts  as  these !  Away  with  all 
such  comments  on  the  plain  teachings  of  Scrip- 
ture even  by  the  most  distinguished  of  mis- 
guided commentators ! 

Martha  was  wrong  in  being  anxiously  worried 
over  many  things  that  might  be  done,  instead  of 
attending  faithfully  to  her  single  duty  of  the  hour. 
This  Jesus  recognized,  and  therefore  he  reproved 
her.  Mary  was  right  in  doing  the  one  thing  that 
was  to  be  done,  when  her  divine  Master  and 
guest  wanted  just  that  duty  done,  and  for  this 
Jesus  commended  her. 


224  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Mary  had  the  qualities  that  would  make  a  bet- 
ter housekeeper  than  was  Martha.  She  could  do 
more  work  and  do  it  better,  in  an  hour  or  in  a 
day,  than  could  Martha;  and  she  would  make 
less  fuss  over  it,  and  this  would  be  less  annoying 
to  herself,  to  her  family,  and  to  her  guests.  We 
have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  this  was  evi- 
denced in  her  everyday  practice. 

We  have  no  authority  for  supposing  that  Mar- 
tha was  the  only  one  of  the  sisters  to  attend  to 
the  housekeeping  in  the  Bethany  home,  and  that 
Mary  left  it  all  to  her  to  do.  The  very  fact  that 
Martha  came  to  Jesus  with  her  complaint  that 
Mary  was  failing  to  help  on  that  particular  occa- 
sion indicates  that  Martha  was  accustomed  to 
expect  Mary's  help  at  ordinary  times.  Jesus,  as 
a  loving  guest,  had  certainly  a  right  to  the  pres- 
ence and  listening  ear  of  at  least  one  of  the  sis- 
ters. Martha,  when  it  was  her  turn  in  the 
kitchen,  evidently  wanted  both  Jesus  and  Mary 
to  be  at  her  service;  for  that  is  the  way  with 
fidgety  and  fussy  women  when  they  have  their 
work  to  attend  to. 

If  it  had  been  Mary's  turn  in  the  kitchen,  that 
day,  she  would  have  attended  to  her  one  duty 
there,  and  have  been  glad  to  have  Martha,  mean- 
time, filling  her  place,  as  a  good  listener,  at  the 
feet  of  Jesus.     Mary  would  not  then  have  left 


Busy  Marthas  Never  Good  Housekeepers        225 

the  kitchen  in  order  to  complain  of  Martha,  and 
to  make  her  guest  uncomfortable.  True  hospi- 
tality shows  itself  in  other  ways  toward  a  guest 
than  in  getting  a  dinner  at  the  cost  of  discomfort 
to  all  in  the  house,  guests  included. 

The  story  of  the  sisters  in  Bethany  shows  us 
how  a  true  woman  is  to  do  a  true  woman's  work, 
whatever  that  work  may  be,  by  attending  to  it  at 
the  proper  time,  and  not  seeming  to  be  worried 
over  it,  or  about  anything  else.  It  shows  us, 
moreover,  how  not  to  be  efficient  as  a  house- 
keeper through  worrying  and  fretting. 

Here  is  also  a  lesson  for  men  in  their  sphere, 
as  well  as  for  women  in  theirs.  ''  A  double- 
minded  man  [or  a  man  cumbered  with  a  divided 
purpose]  unstable  [and  therefore  ineffective] 
in  all  his  ways  "  (Jas.  1 :  8).  Man  or  woman  is 
really  efficient  in  choosing  and  in  attending  to 
the  one  thing  needful  for  the  hour.  The  Bible 
record  is  clear  on  that  point,  whatever  preachers 
or  commentators,  or  thoughtless  business  men, 
or  inefficient  housewives,  may  think  or  say  on 
the  subject. 


XXIV 

CLERGYMEN   NOT  THE  CHIEF 
PREACHERS 

It  is  a  very  common  idea  that  only  an  ordained 
or  regularly  commissioned  preacher  should 
preach ;  that  preachers  are  necessarily  a  class  by 
themselves ;  that  ordinary  laymen,  or  private 
church  members,  would  be  infringing  on  the 
duties  of  a  special  and  privileged  class  or  order 
of  men  if  they  presumed  to  preach.  Yet  this 
idea  is  not  found  expressed  in  the  Bible,  and  it 
gains  no  countenance  from  the  teachings  of  that 
book. 

Our  English  word  "  preach  "  is  used  as  the 
equivalent  of  at  least  two  Hebrew  words  and  five 
Greek  words,  with  their  varying  meanings.  It 
includes  the  call,  or  warning,  of  a  herald ;  the 
telling  of  good  tidings ;  and  the  discoursing  fully 
and  at  length  concerning  a  special  theme.  In 
its  first  two  meanings,  of  heralding  and  evangel- 
izing, it  obviously  is  a  duty  for  all  who  know  of 
a  danger  or  of  a  means  of  good  to  make  it  known 
to  others.  In  the  third  meaning,  of  extended 
and  thorough  discourse,  it  is  rather  teaching  than 

226 


Clergymen  Not  the  Chief  Preachers  227 

preaching  that  is  meant ;  it  is  a  means  of  instruct- 
ing, instead  of  mere  inviting  or  warning.  In  no 
one  of  the  three  senses  is  preaching  limited  by 
the  Bible  to  ordained  or  appointed  ministers  or 
clergymen ;  yet  here  is  where  a  misunderstanding 
of  Bible  teachings  is  common  and  widespread. 

What  would  be  thought  of  a  man  who  dis- 
covered a  fire  breaking  out  in  a  neighbor's  house 
at  midnight,  and  who  refused  to  give  an  alarm 
because  he  was  not  a  regular  policeman  or  an 
authorized  watchman?  That  would  be  acting 
on  the  idea  that  prompts  a  man  to  refrain  from 
heralding  the  good  news  of  salvation  to  sinners 
because  he  is  not  an  ordained  clergyman. 

The  question  of  the  importance  of  an  ordained 
and  educated  ministry  is  quite  by  itself.  A  cler- 
gyman's work  includes  duties  of  administration, 
officiating  at  services  of  various  kinds,  leading  in 
public  worship,  the  administering  of  sacraments, 
instructing  those  who  are  under  his  care,  and 
speaking  words  of  invitation  and  warning  to  all 
whom  he  can  reach.  But  this  last  duty  he  shares 
with  all  the  followers  of  his  Master;  it  is  in  no 
sense  an  exclusive  prerogative  of  his  office  or 
class. 

An  old  clergyman  of  the  stricter  Covenanters, 
rigid  though  he  was  in  all  ecclesiastical  matters, 
said  on  this  point,  "  Every  man  has  a  natural  right 


228  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  preach."  Then  he  proceeded  to  show  that 
the  pubHc  setting  apart  of  a  man  as  a  clergyman 
incUides  a  great  deal  more  than  telling  him  that 
he  has  the  right  to  preach,  as  all  men  have.  Of 
course,  a  minister  has  as  good  a  right  to  preach 
as  any  other  man,  even  though  preaching  is  not  a 
distinctively  ministerial  act.  As  Dr.  Richard  S. 
Storrs  said,  "  It  is  the  first  duty  of  a  minister  to 
be  a  good  layman ;  "  but  that  does  not  deprive 
the  layman  of  his  duty  to  do  the  same  as  a  min- 
ister in  this  particular. 

A  minister's  chief  duty  is  not  that  of  preach- 
ing the  gospel  in  his  pulpit  to  the  unevangelized, 
and  urging  them  to  come  into  the  church  fold. 
That  work  his  people  ought  to  be  doing  at  all 
times,  although  he  can  have  his  part  with  them 
in  this  also.  When  newcomers  are  brought 
under  his  pastoral  care,  it  is  for  him  to  instruct 
and  train  them  faithfully.  There  is  the  great 
need  of  a  wise  and  careful  master  workman. 

As  Mr.  Moody  says,  "  It  is  better  to  set  ten 
men  at  work  than  to  do  the  work  of  ten  men." 
A  minister's  sphere  would  be  enlarged,  and  his 
power  increased,  if  all  his  people  were  preachers, 
at  work  in  season  and  out  of  season,  warning 
and  entreating  souls,  and  bringing  new  disciples 
under  the  pastor's  care  for  instruction  and  train- 
ing.    This  would  not  be  doing  the  pastor's  work 


Clergymen  Not  the  Chief  Preachers  229 

for  him,  but  it  would  be  giving  him  more  work 
to  do,  and  better  work,  continually. 

Whatever  preaching  the  minister  can  do  in  the 
line  of  heralding  invitations  and  warnings,  and 
proclaiming  the  good  news  of  salvation,  at  spe- 
cial services  in  his  church  or  outside  of  it,  is 
indeed  important  as  his  part  of  a  disciple's  mis- 
sion. "As  ye  go,  preach"  (Matt.  lo:  7)  is  a 
command  to  the  ministers  as  to  all  other  disci- 
ples ;  and,  whatever  is  their  distinctive  ministerial 
work,  they  should  not  neglect  this  important 
duty.  Nevertheless,  this  is  not  an  exclusive 
ministerial  function.  A  minister  shares  the 
right  to  it  with  all  the  believers. 

Preaching  is  no  more  the  principal  mission  or 
right  of  a  clergyman  than  is  fighting  the  pre- 
rogative of  a  colonel  of  a  regiment  in  war  time. 
A  colonel's  chief  duty  is  to  oversee  and  direct 
his  soldiers,  and  to  secure  their  action  most  ad- 
vantageously, whether  he  takes  part  personally 
in  the  fighting  or  not.  Urging  others  to  enlist, 
and  bringing  recruits  to  the  commander  for 
training  and  leading,  is  a  duty  that  every  private 
soldier  can  have  a  part  in.  And  when  recruits 
are  fairly  mustered  in,  they  are  to  take  their 
full  share,  in  recruiting  and  fighting,  instead  of 
merely  watching  the  officers  do  it  all.  As  it  is 
in  the  army  of  a   temporal  government,  so   it 


230  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ought  to  be  in  the  Lord's  army.  It  was  said 
of  the  Waldenses,  five  centuries  ago,  "He  who 
has  been  a  disciple  for  seven  days  looks  out 
some  one  whom  he  may  teach  in  his  turn,  so  that 
there  is  a  continual  increase  [of  them]."  Seven 
days  is  quite  long  enough  for  any  disciple  of 
Christ  to  be  in  his  fold,  before  he  begins  to 
preach  about  Christ. 

So  general,  however,  is  the  popular  error  that 
preaching  from  a  pulpit  by  an  ordained  or  spe- 
cially appointed  minister  is  alone  proper  preach- 
ing, that  the  Great  Commission  which  is  our 
Lord's  command  to  his  disciples  for  evangeliz- 
ing, "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  whole  creation"  (Mark  i6:  15), 
seems  to  be  generally  understood  as  though  it 
read,  "  Come  ye  from  all  the  world,  and  hear 
the  gospel  preached."  In  this  view  of  the  Great 
Commission,  the  responsibility  is  practically  sup- 
posed to  rest  on  the  unevangelized  to  come  to 
the  church  in  order  to  be  preached  to,  instead 
of  on  the  preacher  to  look  up  the  unevangelized, 
wherever  they  are,  and  preach  to  them.  Indeed, 
Bishop  Huntington  has  suggested  that  by  their 
system  of  pew-rents  many  churches  seem  to  say 
to  the  unevangelized,  "  Come  to  our  church 
regularly,  and  pay  twenty-five  cents  a  week  for 
your  seat,  and  our  preacher  will  try  to  convert 


Clergymen  Not  the  Chief  Preachers  231 

you."  Outsiders  are  certainly  liable  to  think 
that  this  is  the  way  that  the  churches  look  at 
the  matter. 

It  would  seem,  indeed,  as  if  many  were  so  de- 
sirous of  conforming  strictly  to  the  inspired 
declaration  that  it  is  God's  plan  and  "good 
pleasure  through  the  foolishness  of  the  preach- 
ing [or  the  simple  heralding  of  the  truth]  to 
save  them  that  believe"  (i  Cor.  i:  21)  it,  that 
they  are  possessed  with  the  idea  that  there 
ought  to  be  something  essentially  foolish  m  the 
manner  of  preaching,  or  in  the  limitation  of 
warnings  and  invitations  to  a  special  class  m  a 
particular  place.  But  the  Bible  does  not  justify 
this  idea,  or  say  anything  of  this  nature. 

Of  course,  all  who  would  join  in  the  public 
worship  of  God  ought  to  be  church  attendants. 
Of  course,  all  who  would  have  the  public  minis- 
trations of  the  church  and  its  clergymen  should 
seek  them  there.     Of  course,  all  who  are  desir- 
ous to  know  the  truth,  and  are  inquirers  con- 
cerning the  way  to  God,  ought  to  go  to  the  min- 
ister, if  the  minister  does  not  come  to  them.    Of 
course,  all  who  wish  to  be  instructed  and  trained 
in  spiritual  knowledge  have  their  place  in  the 
church  where  such  knowledge  is  imparted.    But 
the  having  a  building  where  all  this  can  be  found 
by  those  who  desire  it,  is  not  by  any  means  the 


232  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

first  duty,  or  the  chief  one,  of  a  church  and  its 
minister;  nor  is  the  man  who  leads  the  services 
there  the  one  to  do  the  most  of  the  gospel 
preaching  that  ought  to  be  done  by  that  church. 
The  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church  shows 
who  preached  effectively  at  the  start,  and  how 
the  preaching  was  done.  John  the  Baptist  told 
Andrew  and  John  about  Jesus.  Andrew  went 
and  told  Peter.  John  went  and  told  James. 
Philip  told  Nathanael.  This  was  not  public 
preaching  by  an  ordained  clergyman  in  an  audi- 
torium. It  was  man-to-man  preaching  by  the 
simple  telling  of  good  news,  and  the  inviting  to 
share  in  its  benefits.  The  early  believers  went 
everywhere  preaching,  or  proclaiming  the  good 
news.  Philip  left  a  crowd  of  listeners  at  Samaria 
to  find  one  man  in  a  chariot  and  tell  him  about 
Jesus  (Acts  8:  26-40),  and  in  that  way  the  gos- 
pel was  carried  into  the  "  Dark  Continent."  Thus 
the  gospel  has  been  preached  most  effectively 
all  the  way  along  to  the  present  day.  Mr. 
Beecher  expressed  a  great  truth  when  he  said, 
as  the  result  of  his  personal  experience  and  ob- 
servation :  "  The  longer  I  live,  the  more  I  realize 
that  the  best  sermons  are  those  where  one  man 
is  the  minister  and  one  man  is  the  congregation; 
where  the  preaching  is  face  to  face  and  eye  to 
eye ;  where  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  who  is  meant 


Clergymen  Not  the  Chief  Preachers  233 

by  the  words,  '  Thou  art  the  man.'  "  Whoever 
can  preach  thus  ought  to  preach. 

Whoever  knows  of  danger  to  his  fellows,  and 
warns  them  of  it,  is  a  preacher.  Whoever  is 
possessed  of  good  news,  and  lets  it  be  known, 
is  a  preacher.  He  does  not  need  to  be  a  clergy- 
man, or  to  stand  in  a  pulpit.  Wherever  he  is 
face  to  face  with  a  needy  soul  he  ought  to 
preach ;  he  fails  of  his  duty  if  he  then  neglects 
his  opportunity  to  heed  the  Great  Commission. 
Whether  it  be  a  teacher  with  his  pupil,  a  mer- 
chant with  his  clerk,  a  mistress  with  her  servant^ 
a  neighbor  with  a  neighbor,  whoever  it  be  who 
gives  a  warning  or  an  invitation  from  God  which 
is  explicit,  direct,  and  personal,  or  who  puts  a 
straight  question  to  another  as  to  an  interest  in 
Christ's  salvation,  there  is  a  preacher,  and  there 
is  preaching.  As  Richard  Baxter  says,  so  may 
any  one  of  us  say,  "  I  hope  there  is  none  so  silly 
as  to  think  this  conference  is  not  preaching. 
What,  doth  the  number  we  speak  to  make  it 
preaching  ?  Or  doth  iliterlocution  make  it  none  ? 
Surely  a  man  may  as  truly  preach  to  one  as  to  a 
thousand." 

Every  one  of  us  has  a  mission  to  be  a  preacher. 
Every  one  of  us  ought  to  preach.  If  all  of  us 
were  preaching  as  we  have  opportunity,  how 
greatly  the  power  of  the  church  would  be  in- 


234  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

creased,  and  how  much  of  good  might  come  to 
the  needy!  The  misunderstanding  of  the  scope 
and  duty  of  preaching,  and  of  the  call  to  every 
believer  to  preach,  is  one  of  the  chief  causes  of 
neglected  duty  and  of  barren  results  in  this 
sphere. 


XXV 
CHA5TI5LMENT   NOT   PUNISHMENT* 

Many  seem  to  think  that  chastisement  and 
punishment  are  practically  identical.  A  picture, 
or  reading  book  wood-cut,  familiar  to  many  now 
living,  represented  an  irate  farmer  driving  out 
of  his  orchard,  or  punishing  in  it,  a  bad  boy,  who 
had  been  caught  stealing  apples.  The  expression 
on  the  old  man's  face  was  anything  but  a  loving 
or  benevolent  one,  as  he  was  swinging  in  his 
uplifted  hand  a  switch,  or  bunch  of  rods,  while 
the  frightened  boy  was  held  in  his  firm  grasp, 
and  was  caused  to  feel  the  old  man's  vengeance. 
Underneath  this  picture  was  the  legend  that  told 
of  **  an  angry  farmer  chastising  a  rude  boy  who 
was  purloining  apples  from  his  orchard."  That 
picture  represented  the  ordinary  view  of  chas- 
tisement as  a  punitive  or  retributive  measure  in 
the  interests  of  stern  justice. 

Most  readers  would  have  the  same  idea  of 
chastisement  as  they  read  in  the  Bible  of  young 
Rehoboam — the  son  and  successor  of  Solomon — 


*An  incidental  reference  has  been  made  to  this  truth 
in  an  earlier  chapter;  but  it  deserves  fuller  and  sep- 
arate treatment. 

235 


236  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

saying  to  the  representatives  of  the  people  over 
whom  he  was  to  rule,  "  My  father  chastised  you 
with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you  with  scor- 
pions "  (i  Kings  12:  14).  Those  certainly  do  not 
seem  to  be  words  of  love,  prompted  by  a  desire 
for  the  subjects'  good.  Hence  chastisement,  in 
both  the  Bible  and  other  books,  seems  to  convey 
the  idea  of  vindictiveness  and  retribution,  rather 
than  a  method  of  promoting  the  welfare  of  the 
persons  under  treatment. 

Yet  again  we  read  words  in  the  Bible  that 
seem  to  convey  a  very  different  idea.    Thus : 

"My  son,  regard  not  lightly  the  chastening  of  the 

Lord, 
Nor  faint  when  thou  art  reproved  of  him; 
For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth, 
And  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth  "  (Heb. 
12:  5,6). 

"What  son  is  there  whom  his  father  chasten- 
eth not?"  (Heb.  12:  7).  "If  ye  are  without 
chastening,  whereof  all  have  been  made  partak- 
ers, then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons"  (Heb. 
12:  8).  And  thus  in  many  another  place  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New.  It  is  true  that  the 
English  word  "  chasten,"  as  used  in  the  Bible 
and  outside  of  it,  has  a  gentler  and  a  softer 
sound  than  "  chastise,"  and  we  are  not  accus- 
tomed to  connect  the  idea  of  harshness,  or  retri- 


Chastisement  Not  Punishment  237 

bution,  or  vindictiveness,  with  chastening,  as  we 
ordinarily  do  with  chastising.  Yet  in  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew  and  Greek  the  words  '*  chasten  " 
and  "  chastise  "  are  practically  the  same,  and  the 
difference  in  our  way  of  looking  at  them  grows 
out  of  our  way  of  thinking  about  them.  It  is 
what  Professor  Riddle  calls  a  matter  of  eisen- 
gesis,  rather  than  exegesis, — what  we  read  into 
the  words,  rather  than  what  we  read  out  of 
them. 

"  Blessed   is   the   man   whom    thou    chasteneth,    O 
Jehovah, 
And  teachest  out  of  thy  law," 

and  where,  in  i  Kings  12 :  14,  Rehoboam  said 
to  the  people,  ''  My  father  chastised  you  with 
whips,  but  I  will  chasten  you  with  scorpions," 
the  Hebrew  verb  is  the  same  in  every  respect 
that  is  translated  in  one  case  "  chasten  "  and  in 
the  other  "  chastise."  So  it  is  not  easy  to  show 
that  chastise  is  of  itself  a  harsher  word  than 
chasten. 

To  "  chasten  "  and  to  "  chastise  "  a  child  by 
a  parent,  or  a  person  by  a  ruler,  is  primarily  to 
train,  to  teach,  to  discipline,  to  instruct;  the 
meaning  to  "  punish  "  seems  to  be,  in  the  opinion 
of  eminent  etymologists  and  lexicographers,  a 
secondary  meaning,  growing  out  of  human  cus- 


238  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

toms  and  practices.  The  primary  meaning  of 
the  word  looks  to  the  future ;  the  secondary  and 
acquired  meaning  of  it  looks  to  the  past.  To 
train  or  to  teach  has  in  mind  the  future  good 
of  the  person ;  to  punish  has  in  mind  the  per- 
son's past.  The  one  is  anticipatory  in  its  pur- 
pose; the  other  is  retributory,  and  in  a  sense 
vindictive. 

Whether  human  authority,  parental  or  judi- 
cial, has  any  right,  at  any  time,  to  be  retaliatory 
or  vindictive,  is  a  question  in  many  minds.  The 
idea  conveyed  in  the  words  of  God,  "  Vengeance 
belongeth  unto  me ;  I  will  recompense,  saith  the 
Lord"  (Heb.  12:  19)  means  more  in  the  minds 
of  some  than  of  others.  It  is  noteworthy,  in 
this  connection,  that  in  the  few  instances  in  the 
Bible  where  chastise  seems  to  mean  retributive 
or  in  any  sense  vindictive,  the  reference  is  to 
God's  action,  not  to  man's.  When  Rehoboam 
(i  Kings  12:  14)  tells  the  people  of  Israel,  "I 
will  chastise  you  with  scorpions,"  he  obviously 
is  not  threatening  to  punish  them  for  acts  which 
they  had  committed,  for  they  have  not  been 
under  him  until  now.  He  is  speaking  of  the 
future  and  of  his  purpose  of  instructing  or  train- 
ing them  in  the  way,  or  course,  in  which  he 
would  have  them  go.  But  when  it  is  said  (Lev. 
26:  28)   "I  will  chastise  you  seven  times  for 


Chastisement  Not  Punishment  239 

your  sins,"  it  is  God,  not  man,  who  claims  the 
right  of  retahatory  punishment. 

How  many  misguided  and  wrong-doing  par- 
ents have  perverted  the  words  of  sacred  writ, 
and  have  severely,  or  inhumanly,  punished  their 
children  because  of  some  misdeed,  or  failure, 
of  theirs,  without  a  thought  or  purpose  of  love 
to  the  child,  or  of  his  right  training  for  the  fu- 
ture !  The  bitter  chastisement  has  been  in  view 
of  what  has  been,  rather  than  in  view  of  what 
should  be.  It  is,  indeed,  often  well  to  look  at  a 
child's  failures  or  misdeeds  in  the  past  in  order 
to  know  what  is  the  child's  danger  or  need  in 
the  future.  But  in  this  case,  as  in  every  other, 
an  act  of  wise  and  kind  chastening  or  chastising 
is  to  be  performed  as  a  loving  help  to  the  train- 
ing and  future  good  of  the  child,  not  as  a  recom- 
pensing punishment  of  what  has  been  done. 

A  much  misunderstood,  and  therefore  often 
misquoted,  proverb   (Prov.  13:  24)  reads: 

"  He  that  spareth  his  rod  hateth  his  son; 
But  he  that  loveth  him  chasteneth  him  betimes." 

This  proverb  has  been  misused  as  a  supposed 
justification  of  using  a  switch  or  strap  for  the 
thrashing  or  flogging  a  child  because  of  his 
misdeeds.  Yet  a  careful  examination  of  the 
words  as  they  stand  should  show  the  ordinary 
reader  how  far  from  the  truth  is  such  an  idea. 


240  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

The  ''rod"  as  here  used  is  a  sceptre,  or  sign  and 
symbol  of  authority  and  rule,  and  govern- 
ment. When  it  was  prophesied  (Gen.  49:  10) 
that  "  the  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah ;" 
and  again  (Zech.  10:  11)  "  The  sceptre  of  Egypt 
shall  depart,"  and  in  other  references  to 
royal  dominion,  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  used 
that  is  here  rendered  "  rod,"  as  the  symbol  of 
parental  authority.  A  parent  has  a  duty  to  gov- 
ern wisely  and  lovingly  his  child,  so  as  to  guide 
and  direct  and  instruct  his  child  to  its  well-doing 
and  God-serving  in  maturer  years.  A  parent 
ought  always  to  have  a  rod,  or  a  sceptre,  of 
authority.  But  many  a  child  has  been  trained 
without  a  single  flogging,  or  anything  like  it. 
Neither  chastening  nor  chastising  is  necessarily 
punishing  or  flogging. 

How  many  parents  and  teachers  use  chasten- 
ing or  chastising  as  if  it  were  a  form  of 
retaliatory  punishment,  simply  because  they 
themselves  are  wholly  ignorant  of  their  duty !  If 
those  parents  or  teachers  had  been  properly 
trained,  their  children  would  be  differently,  and 
more  hopefully,  cared  for. 


XXVI 
MIZPAH  :  A  BARRIER,  NOT  A  BOND 

A  favorite  symbol  of  union,  or  synonym  of 
a  loving  covenant,  is  the  Hebrew  word  "  Miz- 
pah."  It  is  engraved  on  rings  of  betrothal  or 
marriage,  or  on  brooches  and  bracelets  and 
other  gifts,  as  a  pledge  of  undying  affection. 
There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  in  the  popular  mind, 
or  even  in  the  mind  of  scholars  generally,  as  to 
the  significance  of  this  word  in  its  appropriate- 
ness to  such  use ;  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there 
is  no  foundation  for  the  idea,  other  than  in  the 
misunderstanding  of  an  English  sentence  ac- 
companying its  mention  in  a  single  place  in  the 
Bible  story.  By  that  misunderstanding  a  barrier 
separating  two  persons  is  supposed  to  be  a  bond 
uniting  them :  a  limitation  of  the  rights  of  each 
is  counted  a  loving  link  between  both. 

Laban  and  Jacob  seemed  to  be  fairly  well 
matched  in  their  craftiness  and  cunning,  yet,  in 
a  long  series  of  years  Jacob  had  the  advantage 
of  his  father-in-law  in  the  struggle  (Gen.  29-31). 
When  Jacob  took  his  wives  and  children  and 
flocks,  with  a  portion  of  Laban's  sacred  belong- 

241 


242  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ings,  and  secretly  left  Padan  Aram  for  his  pa- 
ternal home  in  lower  Canaan,  Laban  angrily  pur- 
sued him,  and  overtook  him  at  Mt.  Gilead.  There 
the  two  reproached  each  other,  each  for  seeking 
to  overreach  and  defraud  the  other.  Finally 
they  agreed  to  disagree,  and  to  enter  into  a 
covenant  of  peaceful  disagreement.  They  set 
up  a  stone  pillar,  and  a  stone-heap  of  testimony, 
on  the  territorial  boundary  line  agreed  on  be- 
tween the  two.  Each  was  to  keep  himself  on  his 
side  of  the  line,  and  not  to  pass  over  it  to  harm 
the  other.  The  Lord,  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
was  to  be  witness  of  this  covenant,  and  he  was 
to  see  that  it  was  faithfully  observed  (Gen.  31 : 

44-53). 

They  called  the  heap  of  stones  "  the  witness 
heap :"  in  Laban's  dialect,  "  Jegar-sahadutha ;  " 
in  Jacob's,  "  Galeed."  The  pillar,  or  tower,  they 
called  '*  Mizpah,"  "  the  watch  tower ; "  for 
Laban  said,  "  Jehovah  watch  between  me  and 
thee,  when  we  are  absent  one  from  another." 
This  has  commonly  been  considered  as  meaning 
that  the  Lord  would  keep  the  two  in  loving 
union  or  accord  while  they  were  temporarily 
apart.  But  a  close  examination  of  the  facts,  in 
the  •  light  of  primitive  customs,  shows  that  its 
import  is  rather  that  the  Lord  would  see  to  it 
that  they  kept  apart  in  a  sacred  regard  for  each 


Mizpah:  A  Barrier,  Not  a  Bond  243 

Other's  rights,  and  that  he  would  visit  judgment 
on  them  if  they  did  not  recognize  the  estabhshed 
boundary  line  of  division. 

In  the  earliest  records  we  have  of  Oriental  civ- 
ilization, the  stone  pillar,  or  obelisk,  as  a  bound- 
ary landmark  stands  prominent  for  the  division 
of  the  territory  of  tribes  and  peoples  and  king- 
doms. This  custom  prevailed  long  before  the 
day  of  Laban  and  Jacob.  An  accompanying 
stone-heap  as  an  altar,  for  sacrifice  or  for  a 
sacramental  meal,  was  commonly  near  the  pillar. 
Each  conventional  boundary  stone  pillar  was 
under  the  guardianship  and  protection  of  a  local 
divinity,  or  of  the  god  worshiped  by  its  setter- 
up.  The  curse  of  that  divinity  was  invoked 
against  whoever  should  remove  or  destroy  the 
boundary  mark.  The  invoked  divinity  would 
be  always  on  watch  and  guard  for  the  defense 
of  the  boundary,  even  though  the  land  owner 
was  at  the  time  far  away,  and  ignorant  of  an 
effort  to  violate  the  covenanted  dividing  line. 

In  this  instance,  Laban  and  Jacob  invoked  the 
Lord  God  of  their  fathers  to  watch  the  agreed 
boundary,  and  to  protect  it  from  violation  by 
either  of  the  covenanting  parties.  In  view  of 
the  clearly  established  purpose  of  such  a  border 
watch-tower,  it  is  somewhat  singular  that  "  Miz- 
pah "  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  sacred  bond 


244  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

of  union,  instead  of  as  an  assurance  of  perma- 
nent division. 

To  give  a  ring,  or  a  bracelet,  or  a  brooch,  with 
"  Mizpah  "  engraved  on  it,  at  the  time  of  be- 
trothal or  marriage,  might  be  properly  under- 
stood as  suggesting,  "  A  line  is  drawn  between 
us  that  must  be  sacredly  observed.  You  have 
your  rights  on  one  side  of  it,  and  I  have  my 
right  on  the  other  side.  Let  the  rights  of  each 
be  sacredly  guarded  by  the  other.  There  is  to 
be  no  common  life  between  us.  The  Lord  watch 
between  us  all  the  time,  so  that  the  rights  of 
either  be  not  harmed." 

But  that  is  not  the  idea  of  those  who  inscribe 
"  Mizpah  "  on  a  betrothal  or  wedding  ring ;  or 
of  those  who  use  it  as  a  covenant  watchword 
or  motto.  And  this  is  because  of  the  very  com- 
mon misunderstanding  of  a  Bible  term. 


XXVII 
THL  INFERIORITY  OF  ANGELS 

What  is  an  angel?  What  is  an  angel  at  his 
best?  There  are  certain  well-defined  ideas  as 
to  this  order  of  beings,  ideas  that  are  prevalent 
among  children  and  artists,  and  even  among 
prominent  theologians;  but  the  question  is,  are 
these  ideas  intelligently  based,  and  is  there  any 
ground,  in  the  Bible  teachings,  for  supposing 
that  they  are  reasonably  accurate. 

The  children  sing  heartily — as  heartily  as  if 
there  were  sense  in  the  words — about  angels : 

"  I  want  to  be  an  angel, 

And  with  the  angels  stand. 
A  crown  upon  my  forehead. 
And  a  harp  within  my  hand." 
Dante  and  Milton  and  Raphael  and  Murillo 
and  Dore  and  other  artists,  modern  or  ancient, 
have  pictured  angels  with  wings  and  harps  and 
other  instruments,  thus  giving  some  reason  for 
the    children's    song.      But    as    to    authoritative 
statements  concerning  angels  the  Bible  text  is 
more  trustworthy  than  either  children  or  artists, 
and  this  it  is  that  makes  confusion  when  the 
Bible  text  is   examined,   even  with  the   aid  of 
eminent  commentators. 

245 


246  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

Many  of  onr  ideas  concerning  angels  have 
come  from  Jewish  Talmudic  writings  and  from 
the  writings  of  Muhammadans,  yet  we  would 
hardly  claim  that  these  were  to  be  held,  as  an 
authority,  in  comparison  with  the  Bible  record, 
for  a  Christian's  guidance.  Yet  we  quote,  as  if 
authoritatively,  some  of  these  non-Christian 
writings  about  angels  as  freely  as  we  do  Milton 
and  Dante. 

Among  learned  commentators,  Hooker — 
"  the  judicious  Hooker " — a  divine  of  whom 
Hallam  the  historian  and  critic  says  that  he  is 
the  finest,  as  well  as  the  most  philosophical 
writer  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  declares,  as  if 
authoritatively,  that  angels  "  are  spirits,  imma- 
terial and  intellectual,  the  glorious  inhabitants 
of  those  sacred  palaces,  where  nothing  but  light 
and  blessed  immortality,  ...  all  joy,  tran- 
quillity and  peace,  even  forever,  doth  dwell.  As, 
in  numbers,  they  are  huge,  mighty,  and  royal 
armies,  so  likewise  [are  they]  in  perfection  of 
obedience  unto  that  law  which  the  Highest, 
whom  they  adore,  love,  and  imitate,  hath  im- 
posed upon  them.  .  .  .  Beholding  the  face 
of  God,  they  adore  him ;  being  rapt  with  love  of 
his  beauty,  they  cleave  unto  him;  desiring  to 
resemble  him,  they  try  to  do  good  unto  all  crea- 
tures, and  especially  unto  the  children  of  men." 


The  Inferiority  of  Angels  247 

And  one  of  the  standard  modern  dictionaries 
of  the  Bible  says  :  "  By  the  word  *  angels  '  .  .  . 
we  ordinarily  understand  a  race  of  spiritual 
beings  of  a  nature  exalted  far  above  that  of 
man,  although  infinitely  removed  from  that  of 
God,  whose  office  is  to  do  him  service  in  heaven, 
and  by  his  appointment  to  succor  and  defend 
men  on  earth." 

Yet  if  we  stop  to  examine  closely  the  Bible 
record,  we  are  likely  to  be  surprised  at  finding 
how  small  a  proportion  of  these  popularly  be- 
Heved  statements  concerning  angels  have  a  sub- 
stantial basis  for  their  existence. 

To  turn  to  the  record  of  man's  creation,  who 
would  ever  be  led  to  suppose  that  man  was  lower 
than  the  crowning  work  of  God's  handiwork? 
Does  God  seem  to  say,  "  We  have  creatures  ap- 
proaching our  own  image,  but  we  will  now  form 
some  who  are  lower  than  the  highest  of  these, 
and  see  what  can  be  done  with  such  ?  "  That  is 
not  the  record.  The  record  is  "  God  said.  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  " 
(Gen.  1 :  26) — not  of  a  lower  order  than  angels, 
but  after  the  very  likeness  of  God,  and  in  God's 
very  image. 

There  were  good  angels  and  fallen  angels  at 
that  time,  but  there  is  no  record  of  any  such  in- 
terest on  God's  part  in  the  fallen  angels  as  there 


248  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

was  in  fallen  man,  when  Jesus  Christ  came 
among  men  to  save  them.  God's  crowning  work 
of  creation  was  man.  Angels  were  below  that 
standard,  and  they  have  always  remained  there. 

The  gospel  and  its  messages  are  gifts  of  God 
in  which  we  rejoice,  and  for  which  we 
are  grateful,  "which  things,'*  as  Peter  says, 
"angels  desire  to  look  into"  (i  Pet.  i:  12). 
Does  that  seem  to  point  to  angels  as  if  they  were 
man's  superiors  in  either  capability  or  possibili- 
ties? Is  there  anything  in  the  Bible  that  would 
cause  us  to  believe  that  angels  are  superior  to 
the  race  created  in  God*s  own  image,  and  in 
the  form  which  God's  own  Son  took  upon  him- 
self in  working  out  salvation?  "  Know  ye  not," 
said  Paul,  "that  we  shall  judge  angels?"  at  the 
end  of  this  age,  "  how  much  more,  things  that 
pertain  to  this  life?"  (i  Cor.  6:  3).  Does  that 
look  as  if  angels  were  our  superiors?  "Are  they 
not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  do  serv- 
ice for  the  sake  of  them  that  shall  inherit  salva- 
tion?" (Heb.  i:  14).  What  reason  have  any 
to  think  angels  superior  to,  or  the  equals  of, 
redeemed  saints? 

In  the  first  place,  we  are  liable  to  be  misled 
by  the  word  "  angel,"  which  does  not  mean  what 
it  seems  to  mean.  We  commonly  think  of  an 
"  angel  "  as  the  painter,  or  sculptor,  or  poet,  has 


The  Inferiority  of  Angels  249 

represented  it;  and  we  take  it  for  granted  that 
the  artist  had  some  basis  for  his  representation. 
At  all  events,  we  think  of  an  "  angel  "  as  being 
a  well-defined  form,  when  we  have  no  reason 
to  think  so.  While  we  do  not  know  exactly 
the  form  of  an  angel,  we  can  be  sure  that  an 
angel  is  not  in  any  sense  as  the  painter,  or  the 
sculptor,  or  the  poet,  or  the  ordinary  commenta- 
tor, has  represented  him. 

The  word  translated  "  angel,"  or  as  trans- 
ferred from  the  original,  in  the  Bible  text,  means 
simply  "  messenger  "  or  "  agent."  If  it  had 
been  uniformly  translated  thus,  as  it  sometimes 
is,  with  no  indication  of  its  being  a  peculiar  class 
of  beings,  as  in  i  Samuel  19:  20,  Job  i :  14,  Luke 
7:  24;  9:  51,  and  in  scores  of  other  places  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  there  would 
have  been  less  confusion  as  to  its  meaning. 
Moreover,  the  word  **  messenger,"  or  *'  agent," 
or  "  representative,"  would  hardly  have  excited 
the  imagination  of  artists  to  their  present  repre- 
sentation of  angels.  An  angel,  as  the  Bible  rep- 
resents or  speaks  of  an  angel,  is  not  only  gener- 
ally a  man,  or  being  inferior  to  man  who  is 
the  crowning  work  of  creation,  but  it  is  some- 
times not  an  intelligent  being,  although  some- 
times it  is  such.  An  angel,  or  a  messenger,  or 
an  agent,  of  God,  may  be  a  pestilence,  or  a  hur- 


250  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ricane,  or  a  flame,  or  other  agency  of  destruc- 
tion. Thus,  as  in  Psalm  104,  where  God's  angels 
are  spirits,  and  his  ministers  are  a  flaming  fire. 
As  the  term  "  angel "  is  always  a  figure  of 
speech,  and  never  a  closely  defining  term,  there 
is  some  reason  for  our  misunderstanding  it.  Of 
course,  if  God  would  send  a  message  from  the 
spirit  world  to  man,  God  would  select  what 
seemed  like  man,  as  man  could  not  perceive  a 
spirit.  But  that  would  not  show  what  was  the 
ordinary  form  or  personality  of  an  angel. 

Perhaps  the  figurative  language  of  the  closing 
book  of  the  New  Testament  is  responsible  for 
much  of  the  popular  misrepresentations  of  angels 
as  they  are.  Yet  no  intelligent  reader  supposes 
that  the  fissures  of  speech  in  Revelation  are  to 
be  taken  literally.  And  the  Jewish  Talmudic  lit- 
erature has  undoubtedly  largely  influenced  our 
Christian  thought,  and  often  for  harm. 

Of  one  thing  we  may  be  sure,  neither  the  Old 
Testament  nor  the  New  gives  us  to  understand 
that  angels  are  the  equals  of  human  beings 
formed  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  or 
that  they  will  ever  have  the  spiritual  privileges 
and  power  of  those  who  are  redeemed  in  Christ. 

It  is  true  that  the  word  "  angel  '*  is  sometimes 
employed  in  the  Bible  when  the  context  would 
indicate  that  it  refers   to  the   Christ.     In  such 


The  Inferiority  of  Angels  251 

cases,  of  course,  the  angel  is  of  an  order  vastly 
superior  to  man,  but  that  superiority  is  in  the  One 
who  is  the  messenger,  not  in  his  being  a  mes- 
senger, or  an  angel. 


XXVIll 
CHERUBIM   UTTERLY   UNLIKE  ANGELS 

Pictures  and  poems  have,  perhaps,  done  as 
much  to  mislead  both  young  and  old  as  to  the 
true  meaning  of  Bible  texts  and  Bible  teachings 
as  any  other  human  agency.  In  some  cases  the 
painter,  or  the  poet,  has  himself  misread  Bible 
words,  and  thus  been  a  pioneer  misleader  as  to 
the  truth  taught.  In  other  cases  the  picture,  or 
the  poem,  simply  represents,  or  reproduces,  the 
erroneous  popular  view  of  what  is  exhibited,  or 
suggested  in  the  Bible.  Thus  Michelangelo 
having  misunderstood  the  word,  in  the  Latin  ver- 
sion of  the  Bible,  for  "rays"  or  "horns"  of  light 
on  the  encircled  head  of  Moses,  perpetuated  his 
mistake  to  the  misleading  of  future  generations, 
by  carving  in  stone  his  magnificent  Moses,  with 
two  matter-of-fact  horns  growing  out  of  his 
great  skull.  And  Dante  and  Milton  have  prob- 
ably shaped  more  of  the  generally  accepted  ideas, 
even  as  expressed  by  prominent  preachers  in 
the  pulpit,  concerning  angels  and  demons,  and 
their  doings  in  heaven  and  in  hell,  than  all  the 
pages  of  the  Bible  put  together. 

But  perhaps  of  all   the   persons,  places  and 

252 


Cherubim  Utterly  Unlike  Angels  253 

things  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  none  have  been 
more  generally,  or  more  completely,  misunder- 
stood and  misrepresented  than  angels  and  cherur 
bim.  In  the  first  place,  angels  and  cherubim  are 
often  spoken  of  as  if  they  were  of  the  same  order 
of  beings,  or  having  something  in  common, 
when  in  fact  there  seems  to  be  no  justification 
of,  or  excuse  for,  this  remarkable  blunder  in  any 
text  or  teaching  of  the  Bible.  Poets  and  paint- 
ers generally  seem  disposed  to  represent  an 
angel  as  a  delicate  young  woman  in  a  dress,  or 
gown,  with  a  long  train.  Yet  the  Bible  gen- 
erally represents  an  angel,  or  a  celestial  mes- 
senger, or  servitor,  as  an  able-bodied  man  set 
to  doing  the  Lord's  work.  It  is  to  the  honor  of 
women  that,  in  the  holiest  teachings,  the  hew- 
ing of  wood  and  the  drawing  of  water,  and  the 
doing  of  guard  duty,  and  even  the  running  of 
errands,  and  all  such  work,  are  supposed  to  be 
in  man's  line,  rather  than  woman's  in  the  celes- 
tial sphere.  But  the  painters  and  poets,  at  all 
events  the  more  popular  poets,  take  quite  the 
opposite  view  of  this  from  that  given  by  the  in- 
spired writers. 

It  would  certainly  seem  a  bad  enough  blunder 
to  represent  an  angel  as  a  delicate  young  woman, 
but  even  this  is  outdone  by  the  more  baseless 
and    more    absurd    blunder    of    representing    a 


254  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

cherub  (the  singular  of  the  plural,  or  dual,  term 
cherubim)  as  similarly  a  delicate  young  woman 
in  evening  dress.  Yet  this  blunder  of  blunders 
has  been  made  by  many  persons,  who  have  ac- 
tually read  their  Bible  even  if  they  have  not 
studied  it.  How  the  Bible  text  is  misused  and 
perverted ! 

Raphael,  in  his  Sistine  Madonna,  conforms  to, 
or  suggests,  the  popular  idea  of  a  ''  cherub " 
when  he  paints  two  bright  little  boys,  as  if  at- 
tending spirits,  or  angels,  delightfully  impressed 
by  the  Divine  Child  in  his  Virgin  Mother's  arms. 
Milton  tells  how 

"The  cherubic  host  in  thousand  choirs 
Touch  their  immortal  harps  of  golden  wires." 

And,  even  in  our  comparatively  enlightened 
time,  our  Lowell  says,  out  of  memories  of  a 
lamented  child, 

"He  seemed  a  cherub  who  had  lost  his  way, 
And  wandered  hither." 

Now,  while  none  of  us  can  say  with  positive- 
ness  just  what  was  the  precise  shape  or  form 
of  the  Bible  cherub,  all  of  us  can  say  positively 
that  the  Bible  describes  the  cherubim  as  some- 
thing very  unlike  little  boys,  or  young  women,  or 
even  like  the  popular  conception,  or  the  Bible 
description,  of  God's  "  angels,"  or  spiritual  mes- 
sengers. 


Cherubim  Utterly  Unlike  Angels  255 

The  Bible  speaks  of  a  cherub,  or  of  the  dual 
cherubim,  as  part  ox,  and  part  lion,  and  part 
eagle,  and  part  man  (Ezek.  lo:  14).  That 
does  not  answer  to  the  description  of  any  known 
being  in  this  world,  so  that  we  can  be  confident 
that  in  it  we  have  a  truer  suggestion  of  the  Bible 
cherub  than  is  found  in  a  little  boy,  a  young 
woman,  or  an  active  man.  Yet  in  view  of  well- 
known  Oriental  imagery,  we  can  see  that  the  ox 
represents  service,  the  lion  represents  strength, 
the  eagle  represents  aspiration,  or  power  of 
flight,  and  the  man  represents  intelligence  and 
human  God-likeness.  All  these  symbols  are  in 
God's  creation,  and  all  conjoin  for  the  doing  of 
God's  will  at  his  command  or  appointment. 

The  first  Bible  mention  of  cherubim  is  when 
they  were  placed  at  the  entrance  to  Eden,  to 
guard  it  from  outside  approach,  after  the  expul- 
sion of  our  first  parents.  That  certainly  does 
not  suggest  the  idea  of  a  little  boy,  or  a  young 
woman,  put  on  guard,  even  if  armed  with  a  re- 
volving and  flaming  sword.  Again,  there  were 
cherubim  above  the  Ark  of  the  covenant,  inside 
of  which  there  was  an  explicit  agreement  that 
there  should  be  no  likeness,  or  image,  of  any- 
thing in  earth  or  heaven  tolerated  by  God's  chil- 
dren. That  forbids  the  thought  of  figures  of 
little  boys,  of  young  women,  or  man-like  angels. 


256  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

but  it  does  not  forbid  the  idea  of  symbols  of 
truth  which  were  and  are  not  images  of  existing 
creatures. 

In  more  than  one  place  in  the  Bible  (2  Sam. 
22:  11;  Psa.  18:  10)  it  is  said  of  the  Almighty, 
when  he  would  respond  to  an  appeal  from  his 
earthly  children,  that 

"He  rode  upon  a  cherub  and  did  fly." 

Who,  in  view  of  that,  would  entertain,  or  coun- 
tenance, the  thought  of  a  little  boy,  or  a  young 
woman,  or  of  a  man-shaped  angel,  as  being  the 
upbearer  of  the  Almighty  from  place  to  place? 
Yet  the  symbolic  forces  of  creation,  as  repre- 
sented in  the  Bible  references  to  the  cherubim, 
may  well  be  thought  of  as  accompanying  the  Al- 
mighty in  his  movements  in  the  universe. 

We,  not  unnaturally,  want  to  think  of  any- 
thing that  we  read  of,  or  hear  of,  as  measurably 
like  something  that  we  have  actually  seen  or 
known  of.  Each  of  our  ideals  has  its  basis  or 
promptings  in  some  real  in  our  sphere  of  ex- 
perience or  thought.  But  an  Oriental  prefers  to 
think  of  spiritual  things,  or  religious  truths,  as 
suggested,  rather  than  described  in  the  things 
of  nature.  Thus,  while  we  might  think  of  a 
cherub  or  an  angel  as  a  boy,  or  a  young  woman, 
or  a  man,  because  we  are  acquainted  with  those 
objects  in  nature,  an  Oriental  would  feel  sure 


Cherubim  Utterly  Unlike  Angels  257 

that  any  human  pattern  could  not  represent  the 
spiritual  and  supernatural  to  which  his  thoughts 
were  directed.  He  prefers  to  think  of  some- 
thing beyond  all  that  he  has  seen  or  known. 
Thus  in  the  symbolic  and  suggestive  cherubirn, 
with  its  combination  of  all  that  is  best  in  nature, 
and  with  yet  more  above  and  beyond;  for  we 
must  ever  bear  in  mind  that  the  Bible  was  writ- 
ten by  Orientals,  and  primarily  for  Orientals. 

The  idea  of  teaching  and  impressing  religious 
truth  by  symbolism  through  a  combination  of 
representative  ideas  in  the  form  of  various  cre- 
ated beings  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews,  nor 
did  it  originate  with  them.  Long  before  Moses 
was  born,  or  before  the  Bible  writings  as  we  have 
them  were  begun,  the  idea  was  a  common  one 
in  the  world.  This  symbolism  was  very  different 
from  idolatry,  or  from  image  worship,  even 
though  evil  man  might  in  any  case  pervert  the 
suggestive  symbols  into  an  object  of  wrong  wor- 
ship. Thus  with  the  Egyptian  Sphinx,  with  the 
head  of  a  man  and  the  body  of  a  lion.  These 
figures  surmounted  a  temple,  or  bordered  an 
avenue  to  a  temple,  not  as  idols,  but  as  typical 
of  strength  and  wisdom.  In  Greece  the  Sphinx 
combined  the  form  of  the  lion,  the  woman,  and 
the  eagle;  for  in  Greece  they  gave  more  promi- 
nence than  in  Egypt  to  grace,  beauty  and  imag- 


258  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

ination,  in  addition  to  their  high  estimate  of 
strength. 

Again,  in  Babylon  and  Assyria  there  were  the 
human-headed  and  winged  bulls  at  the  threshold 
of  the  palaces  and  temples  of  rulers  and  priests. 
These  perhaps  more  nearly  resembled  the  cheru- 
bim at  the  threshold  of  Eden,  and  at  other  points 
in  Hebrew  history.  We  need  not  suppose 
that  the  Hebrews  imitated  any  of  the  Eg>^ptian 
or  Assyrian  symbolic  forms  when  they  made 
the  cherubim,  nor  even  that  the  Hebrews  re- 
ceived a  suggestion  from  them,  but  we  can  per- 
ceive that  the  use  in  imagery  of  a  combination 
of  created  forms  as  suggestive  of  important 
spiritual  truths  was  a  well-known  mode  of  teach- 
ing long  before  the  days  of  Moses,  or  Jacob, 
or  Abraham. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  suggested  by  eminent 
Bible  scholars,  that  this  known  truth,  combined 
with  the  very  words  of  the  Hebrew  text,  give 
occasion  for  thinking  that  the  "  golden  calf " 
worshiped  before  Mt.  Sinai  was  a  cherubic 
form,  rather  than  the  form  of  Apis  or  another 
Egyptian  divinity.  It  is  also  thought  by  many 
that  the  "  calves  "  set  up  by  Jeroboam  at  Dan 
and  Bethel  were  cherubim,  to  suggest  that  the 
mercy  seat  was  the  whole  land  of  Israel  between 
the  cherubim,  now  that  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem 


Cherubim  Utterly  Unlike  Angels  259 

was  no  longer  the  place  for  worship  by  Israel- 
ites. However  this  may  be,  we  know  enough  to 
be  sure  that  we  are  not  justified  in  supposing 
that  cherubim  and  angels  are  of  the  same  class 
or  order  or  appearance  of  beings.  It  would  be 
no  more  unreasonable  for  us  to  claim  that  a  well- 
made  kaleidoscope,  with  its  varying  suggestions, 
is  identical  with  a  recognized  postman  and  letter- 
carrier  bringing  a  precious  letter  from  his  loved 
home  to  a  longing  son  separated  from  his  dear- 
est ones  of  the  home  and  the  heart. 


XXIX 

SPIRIT,  NOT  50UU  MAN'S  PRL-LMINLNCL 

It  seems  to  be  commonly  believed,  among  the 
poorly  informed,  that  the  soul  of  man  is  the 
spirit  of  man,  and  that  therefore  man's  soul  is 
his  pre-eminent  possession,  which  distinguishes 
him  from  the  lower  animals  and  the  brute  cre- 
ation. But  this  opinion  is  not  in  accordance 
with  Bible  teachings,  or  with  sound  reasoning. 

The  lower  animals  have  bodies  and  souls.  Man 
alone  has  body,  and  soul,  and  spirit.  It  is  the 
spirit,  therefore,  and  not  the  soul,  that  marks 
man's  pre-eminence.  A  failure  to  recognize  this 
truth  is  a  failure  to  appreciate  the  superiority  of 
man,  even  the  lowest  of  the  human  race,  to  the 
lower  animals,  even  the  highest  and  best  tramed 
of  the  brute  creation. 

But  man  and  the  lower  animals  have  a  mate- 
rial body,  and  a  life,  an  animal  life,  within  the 
body,  which  is  common  to,  or  alike  in,  the  two 
orders  of  being.  That  which  is  the  life  of  the 
body,  which  vivifies  the  body  and  enables  it  to 
perform  its  functions,  is  much  the  same  in  man 
and  brutes.     In  the  Hebrew  and  in  the  Greek 

260 


Spirit,  Not  Soul,  Man's  Pre-eminence  261 

the  word  designating  this  animal  life  is  ordi- 
narily the  same  for  both  man  and  the  lower  ani- 
mals. Both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the 
New  this  word  is  translated  "  soul."  The  word 
**  soul "  therefore  applies  to  that  animal  life 
which  man  has  in  common  with  the  brutes.  If 
this  be  immortal  in  man,  it  would  seem  to  be 
immortal  in  brutes;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Bible  which  seems  to  justify  the  belief  that  im- 
mortality attaches  to  the  soul  or  the  mere  animal 
life  in  brutes,  or  in  man. 

Man  has,  however,  that  which  distinguishes 
him  from  the  brute,  that  which  is  his  highest 
possession,  or  nature,  and  which  marks  him  as 
above  all  others  who  dwell  in  mortal  bodies. 
That  possession,  or  nature,  is  not  the  "  soul," 
but  the  "  spirit."  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  and  man, 
in  having  a  spirit,  is  so  far  God-like,  capable  of 
knowing  God  and  of  aspiring  to  God.  Immor- 
tality attaches  to  God's  spirit,  and,  because  man 
is  like  God  in  having  a  spirit,  it  is  fair  to  conclude 
that  man's  spirit,  not  man's  soul,  is  immortal. 
While  it  is  quite  proper  to  say,  in  view  of  these 
well-known  facts,  that  not  only  gorillas  and 
chimpanzees,  but  dogs  and  cats  and  birds,  as 
well  as  men,  have  souls,  have  animal  life  dis- 
tinct from  their  bodies,  it  cannot  be  said  with 
any  show  of  reason  that  any  being  but  man  has 


262  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

an  immortal  spirit ;  that  is  only  man's  high  pos- 
session or  nature. 

Both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New 
the  word  translated  "  soul "  means  **  life,"  and 
is  frequently  so  rendered.  In  many  instances  it 
would  not  make  sense  unless  it  were  translated 
by  such  a  term.  Thus,  "  As  to  the  life  of  all 
flesh,  the  blood  thereof  is  all  one  with  the  life 
thereof.  .  .  .  For  the  life  of  all  flesh  is  the 
blood  thereof"  (Lev.  17:  14).  The  Hebrew 
word  here  rendered  "  life  "  is  the  same  as  that 
rendered  **  soul "  where  it  is  said  of  the  Israel- 
ites, "  Then  shall  they  give  every  man  a  ransom 
for  his  soul  unto  Jehovah"  (Exod.  30:  12); 
and  again,  where  offerings  are  spoken  of  as 
brought  to  the  Lord  "  to  make  atonement  for  our 
souls  "  (Num.  31 :  50).  But  no  translator  would 
think  of  saying,  "  The  [animal]  blood  .  .  . 
is  all  one  with  the  [immortal]  soul."  So,  again, 
where  Satan  is  represented  as  saying  of  Job, 
"  Skin  for  skin,  yea,  all  that  a  man  hath  will  he 
give  for  his  life  "  (Job  2 :  4),  it  would  be  absurd 
to  suppose  that  Satan  deemed  every  man  ready 
always  to  count  his  immortal  portion  as  above 
every  earthly  interest.  Yet  it  is  the  same  He- 
brew word  here  rendered  "  life,"  as  that  given  as 
"  soul  "  in  the  declaration,  "  Jehovah  redcemeth 
the  soul  of  his  servants ;  and  none  of  them  that 


spirit.  Not  Soul,  Man's  Pre-eminence  263 

take  refuge  in  him  shall  be  condemned"  (Psa. 
34:  22).  It  is  the  corresponding  Greek  word 
employed  in  the  New  Testament,  where  Jesus 
asks,  *'  What  shall  a  man  be  profited  if  he  shall 
gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul?" 
(or,  as  the  Revision  renders  it,  *'  and  forfeit  his 
life"  Matt.  16:  26). 

This  term,  it  is  true,  sometimes  stands  for  the 
individual  as  a  living  being,  as  where,  in  cases  of 
disobedience,  "  that  soul  [which  hath  disobeyed] 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  "  (Gen.  17:  14)  ; 
and  again  where  in  an  estimate  of  the  spoils  of 
war,  it  is  said  that  "  one  soul  of  five  hundred, 
both  of  the  persons,  and  of  the  oxen,  and  of  the 
asses,  and  of  the  flocks"  (Num.  31:  28)  is  to 
be  taken.  In  other  instances  it  has  a  broader 
application  as  applying  to,  or  as  representing,  the 
whole  self.  Thus,  "  My  soul  shall  be  joyful  in 
Jehovah:  it  shall  rejoice  in  his  salvation"  (Psa. 
35 :  9)  ;  and  "  Hear,  and  your  soul  shall  live  " 
(Isa.  55:  3).  It  is  in  this  broader  sense  that 
Jesus  seems  to  employ  it,  where,  in  the  instance 
above  cited,  he  asks,  "  What  shall  a  man  be 
profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
forfeit  his  life  [or  self]  ?  or  what  shall  a  man 
give  in  exchange  for  his  life  [or  self]  ?  "  (Matt. 
16:  26).  Thus,  again,  in  Matthew,  it  is  said  that 
we  are  to  "  fear   him  who   is   able  to   destroy 


264  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

both  soul  and  body  [the  entire  self]  in  hell." 
In  this  sense,  "  soul "  may  be  used  to  include 
the  immortal  spirit,  the  entire  being  or  person- 
ality ;  but  nowhere  is  the  word  '*  soul  "  in  either 
Testament  specifically  given  for  the  immortal 
part  of  man,  living  after  the  death  of  the  body 
and  the  soul.  It  is  indeed,  however,  used  as 
distinct  from  the  spirit  in  various  instances. 
"  With  my  soul  have  I  desired  thee  in  the  night ; 
yea,  with  my  spirit  within  me  will  I  seek  thee 
earnestly"  (Isa.  26:  9);  "The  God  of  peace 
himself  sanctify  you  wholly;  and  may  your  spirit 
and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  entire,  without 
blame  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ " 
(i  Thess.  5:  23). 

It  is  the  "  spirit "  of  man,  not  the  "  soul," 
which  is  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  the  higher 
portion  or  nature  of  man,  as  over  against,  and 
frequently  as  in  conflict  with,  the  "  body  "  as  his 
lower  portion  or  nature.  Elihu  says  to  Job, 
concerning  man's  capacity  to  receive  wisdom : 

"  There  is  a  spirit  in  man, 
And  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  [or  "the  inspiration 
of  the  Almighty,"  as  the  Aiith.  Ver.  has  it]  giveth 
them  understanding"  (Job  32:  8). 
Says  the  Psalmist: 
Into  thy  hand  I  commend  my  spirit: 
Thou  hast  redeemed  me,  O  Jehovah,  thou  God  of 
truth  (Psa.  31:  5) 


Spirit,  Not  Soul,  Man's  Pre-eminence  265 

It  is  said  in  the  Proverbs : 

All  the  ways  of  a  man  are  clean  in  his  own  eyes: 
But  Jehovah  weigheth  the  spirits  (Prov,  i6:  2). 

The  call  of  God  to  Israel  is ; 

Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions,  where- 
in ye  have  transgressed;  and  make  you  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit:  for  why  will  ye  die,  O 
house  of  Israel?  (Ezek.  18:  31). 

It  is  in  the  New  Testament  as  in  the  Old. 
"  Who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man, 
save  the  spirit  of  the  man  which  is  in  him  ?  " 
(i  Cor.  2:  11).  Our  life  in  the  body  is  so  to  be 
lived  "that  the  spirit  [not  the  soul]  may  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus "  ( i  Cor. 
5:  5).  The  standard  to  strive  for  is  of  one 
"  holy  both  in  body  and  in  spirit  "  (i  Cor.  7 :  34). 
We  are  to  "  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defile- 
ment of  flesh  and  spirit "  (2  Cor.  7:1);  and  we 
are  not  to  "  walk  after  the  flesh  in  the  lust  of 
defilement  "  (2  Pet.  2:  10).  That  which  is  pop- 
ularly supposed  to  be  the  soul,  as  the  higher  and 
the  immortal  nature  of  man,  is  throughout  the 
Bible  spoken  of  as  the  spirit  which  man  has  from 
God,  which  can  aspire  after  God,  and  can  come 
to  be  joined  to  God  (i  Cor.  6:  17). 

Of  course,  there  are  particular  texts  in  the 
Bible  which  might  at  first  glance  seem  not  recon- 
cilable with  the  view  that  it  is  the  spirit,  and  not 


266  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

the  soul,  which  is  man's  highest  nature,  and 
which  gives  to  him  the  possibility  of  immortality 
as  distinguished  from  the  brutes.  Yet  a  little 
examination  shows  that  these  texts  are  all  con- 
sistent with  that  view,  or  are  specially  confirma- 
tory of  it. 

"  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man  whether  it 
goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  the  beast 
whether  it  goeth  downward  to  the  earth  ? " 
(Eccl.  3:  21).  That  would  seem  to  put  man 
and  the  beast  on  a  level  as  to  the  possession  of  a 
spirit.  But  that  is  given  in  Ecclesiastes — or 
Koheleth — as  a  skeptic's  question,  as  the  ques- 
tion of  one  who  doubts  whether  man  has  a  su- 
perior nature  and  destiny  to  the  brutes.  It  is 
answered  in  the  closing  words  of  Koheleth's 
declaration  concerning  man's  final  state.  Then 
"the  dust  [of  man,  not  of  the  beast]  returneth 
to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  [of  man, 
not  of  the  beast]  returneth  unto  God  who  gave 
it"  (Eccl.  12:  7). 

It  is  said  that  when  "Jehovah  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,"  that  "  man 
became  a  living  soul"  (Gen.  2:  7).  Here  it  is 
soul,  not  spirit,  that  is  spoken  of  as  given  to  man 
by  God.  But  it  was  then  that  man's  body  first 
received  its  animal  life,  or  its  soul,  and  it  was 


Spirit,  Not  5oul,  Man's  Pre-eminence  267 

then  also  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of 
God  (Gen.  i:  26,  27),  with  a  spirit  given  him 
from  God  capable  of  knowing  God,  and  of  aspir- 
ing to  be  like  God.  This  distinction  between 
man's  soul  or  his  animal  life,  and  man's  spirit 
or  his  nature  after  God's  likeness,  is  borne  out 
all  through  the  Scriptures. 

While  the  *'  spirit  "  is  often  employed  as  desig- 
nating man's  personality  or  self,  it  is  not  spoken 
of  as  distinct  from  the  "  spirit "  which  survives 
the  body.  Even  God  himself  uses  the  term  soul 
as  applicable  to  his  entire  nature  or  self,  as  when 
he  says  of  his  Messiah,  "  Behold,  my  servant, 
whom  I  uphold;  my  chosen,  in  whom  my  soul 
delighteth"  (Isa.  42 :  i ;  Matt.  12:  18). 

Because  the  term  "  soul "  is  never  given  in 
the  Bible  as  designating  the  higher  nature  of 
man,  that  portion  of  his  nature  which  survives 
the  perishing  body  with  its  animal  life,  we  are 
liable  to  be  confused  ourselves,  and  to  mislead 
and  confuse  our  fellows,  when  we  so  employ  the 
term  '*  soul "  in  our  ordinary  speech.  The  cor- 
rect way  is  the  best  way,  and  the  incorrect  way 
is  a  poor  way,  whether  we  are  intentionally  in 
error  or  are  simply  careless  in  the  employing  of 
the  wrong  term. 


XXX 

WHAT  WILL  5ATI5FY  US  WHEN 
WL  AWAKL? 

As  a  well-known  text  is  ordinarily  understood, 
we  are  encouraged  to  believe  that  we  shall  finally 
awake  in  the  likeness  of  God,  and  that,  being 
in  that  likeness,  we  shall  be  satisfied.  The  text 
is  in  the  Psalms,  and  it  reads,  in  both  the  King 
James  version  and  the  Anglo-American  Re- 
vision, "  I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake,  with 
thy  likeness."  But  the  ordinary  understanding 
of  this  text  is  wholly  wrong.  The  text  as  it 
stands  in  the  original  would  be  convincing  as 
to  this ;  and  so,  indeed,  would  be  the  text  with 
its  indicated  meaning  in  the  context  in  our  Eng- 
lish version.  The  American  Standard  Revision 
makes  the  meaning  clear  by  this  translation :  "  I 
shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  beholding 
thy  form." 

The  text  reads,  "  I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I 
awake,  with  thy  likeness."  As  it  is  ordinarily 
understood,  it  would  read,  "  I  shall  be  satisfied 
when  I  awake  in  thy  likeness."  Indeed,  a  volume 
of  published  sermons  by  a  distinguished  clergy- 
man gave  this  text  in  the  erroneous  and  popular 

268 


What  Will  Satisfy  Us  When  We  Awake  269 

form,  instead  of  the  correct  one.  The  words 
might  more  properly  or  more  intelligently  be 
rendered,  ''  I  shall  be  satisfied  with  thy  likeness, 
when  I  awake."  As  ordinarily  misread,  it  might 
be,  **  When  I  awake  in  thy  likeness  I  shall  be 
satisfied  " — with  my  looks. 

The  common  understanding  of  this  text  is  that 
it  refers  to  the  final  awakening  after  the  sleep 
of  death.  In  this  way  it  is  spoken  of  in  the 
hymns  which  we  hear : 

"I  shall  be  satisfied, 
I  shall  be  satisfied, 
When  I  awake  in  thy  likeness." 

Dr.  J.  Addison  Alexander  has  suggested  that 
this  psalm  was  written  as  an  evening  psalm,  with 
the  outlook  toward  a  better  and  a  brighter  com- 
ing day.  The  context  would  seem  to  justify 
this  : 

"Deliver  my  soul  from  the  wicked  by  thy  sword ; 
From  men,  by  thy  hand,  O  Lord, 

From  men  of  the  world,  whose  portion  is  in  this  life, 
And  whose  belly  thou  fillest  with  thy  treasure: 
They  are  satisfied  with  children. 
And  leave  the  rest  of  their  substance  to  their  babes. 
As  for  me,  I  shall  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness: 
I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  thy  likeness." 

Men  of  the  world,  suggests  the  Psalmist,  may 
be  satisfied  with  the  things  of  the  world,  secured 


270  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  them  or  to  their  children.  But  these  are  not 
enough  for  me.  Only  God  is  sufficient  to  meet 
my  longings.  Only  when  I  am  fully  awake  to 
the  sight  of  him  as  he  is  shall  I,  or  should  I,  be 
satisfied. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  God's 
promises  for  the  future  are  to  be  realized  only 
in  another  life.  In  the  Bible,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  there  are  ten  promises  for  this  life 
where  there  is  one  for  the  life  to  come.  God's 
promises  of  good  are  for  the  life  that  now  is, 
even  if  we  are  to  have  still  better  things  here- 
after. This  may  not  be  the  ordinary  way  of 
looking  at  God's  promises,  but  it  is  the  right 
way — the  Bible  way. 

Whether  this  be  a  psalm  written  for  evening 
or  for  any  other  occasion,  it  is  manifest  that  the 
psalmist  wants  it  understood  that  whenever  he 
awakes,  whenever  he  sees  things  as  they  really 
are,  he  will  be  satisfied  with  the  likeness  of  God, 
with  the  appearance  of  God,  with  God  himself, 
and  that  nothing  short  of  this  will  ever  satisfy 
him.  How  much  better  is  that  thought  than  the 
ordinary  one  in  connection  with  this  psalm,  that 
we  shall  be  satisfied  with  our  own  appearance 
when  we  look  like  God ! 


XXXI 

THE  RL5URRLCTION   NOT  A   MLRE 
RISING  AGAIN 

A  "  resurrection  "  is  literally  a  ''  rising  again." 
In  that  sense  we  speak  of  nature's  resurrection 
in  the  spring,  and  in  the  same  sense  we  may 
speak  of  our  resurrection  every  morning,  as  we 
awake  from  sleep  and  insensibility,  and  arise  for 
a  new  day's  Hfe.  But  as  appHed  to  man's  exist- 
ence, we  use  the  word  "  resurrection  "  as  mean- 
ing a  man's  awakening  from  the  sleep  of  death, 
his  rising  again  to  Hfe,  after  he  has  been  for  a 
time  in  the  state  of  death.  As  a  Bible  phrase, 
and  as  a  term  used  in  theological  writings,  the 
resurrection  means  the  rising  to  life  of  Jesus 
after  his  crucifixion  and  burial;  and  again  it 
refers  to  the  event  when  all  that  are  dead  shall 
rise  from  the  grave,  and  come  anew  to  life  at  the 
end  of  the  age. 

But  while  the  word  "  resurrection,"  as  used  in 
the  Bible  or  outside  of  it,  means,  as  a  word,  no 
more  than  a  rising  again  or  an  awakening,  the 
idea  of  a  resurrection  or  of  the  resurrection  im- 
plies in  its  signification  more  than  a  mere  awak- 
ening, or  a  rising  up,  from  the  dead.    The  resur- 

271 


272  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

rection  of  our  bodies  after  death  is  in  connection 
with  a  change,  so  that  the  new  body  shall  be  in 
accordance  with  the  conditions  and  needs  of  the 
new  life  as  distinct  from  the  old  life.  On  this 
point  the  text  and  the  narrative  of  the  Bible  are 
explicit  and  positive,  and  the  failure  to  realize 
this  is  a  failure  to  comprehend  the'  importance 
and  magnitude  of  the  central  fact  of  Christianity 
— the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"We  all  shall  not  sleep  [the  sleep  of  death], 
but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump;  for  the 
trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible  [already  incorruptible  when  they 
are  raised],  and  we  [still  in  our  corruptible 
bodies]  shall  be  changed.  For  this  corruptible 
[body]  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mor- 
tal [body]  must  put  on  immortality"  (i  Cor. 
15:  51-54).  **  For  since  by  man  came  death, 
by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive.  But  each  in  his  own  order: 
Christ  the  first-fruits  [of  the  resurrection  har- 
vest] ;  then  they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming  " 
(i  Cor.  15:  21-23). 

"  But  some  one  will  say,  How  are  the  dead 
raised?  and  with  what  manner  of  body  do  they 
come?    Thou  foolish  one,  that  which  thou  thy- 


The  Resurrection  Not  a  Mere  Rising  Again       273 

self  sowest  is  not  quickened  [made  alive]  except 
it  die :  and  that  which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest 
not  the  body  that  shall  be,  but  a  bare  grain,  it 
may  chance  [to  be]  of  wheat,  or  of  some  other 
kind ;  but  God  giveth  it  a  body  even  as  it  pleased 
him,  and  to  each  seed  a  body  of  its  own.  .  .  . 
So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is 
sown  in  corruption;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption 
[not  raised  to  become  afterward  incorruptible, 
but  raised  in  incorruption]  ;  it  is  sown  in  dis- 
honor, it  is  raised  in  glory;  it  is  sown  in  weak- 
ness, it  is  raised  in  power;  it  is  sown  a  natural 
body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body"  (i  Cor.  15: 

35-44). 

This  is  the  order  and  the  manner  of  the  resur- 
rection, according  to  the  assurances  of  the  in- 
spired writer.  Jesus  was  the  "  first-fruits  "  of  the 
resurrection ;  but  he  was  not  the  first  person  who 
had  been  raised  to  life  from  the  dead.  Hence 
his  resurrection  could  not  have  been  his  mere 
rising  up  in  his  unchanged  natural  body.  Jesus 
had  himself  raised  up  Lazarus,  calling  him  out 
of  the  grave  where  he  had  been  dead  four  days. 
Jesus  had  called  to  life  the  dead  son  of  the  widow 
of  Nain,  as  he  was  being  carried  to  the  grave. 
Long  before  this,  Elisha  had  raised  to  life  the 
dead  son  of  the  Shunammite  woman.  But  no  one 
of  these  risings  from  the  dead  was  a  "  resurrec- 


274  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

tion,"  as  was  that  of  Jesus,  and  as  will  be  that  of 
every  follower  of  Jesus  in  the  time  of  resurrec- 
tion. A  change  from  a  corruptible  body  to  an 
incorruptible  one,  a  change  from  a  natural  body 
to  a  spiritual  body,  there  must  have  been  in  Jesus 
when  he  became  the  **  first-fruits  "  of  the  resur- 
rection harvest.  Was  this  so?  The  question  is 
not.  What  have  men,  even  creed  and  catechism 
writers,  said  about  it?  But,  What  is  the  Bible 
showing  on  the  subject? 

When  the  *'  natural  "  body  of  Jesus  was  laid 
in  the  tomb,  it  had  been  reverently  prepared  for 
burial  by  godly  Jews.  It  is  important  to  have  in 
mind  the  manner  of  Oriental  burial.  This  was 
not  like  our  Occidental  method  of  arraying  the 
corpse  in  fitting  and  seemly  garments,  but  it  was 
by  enwrapping  the  body  from  feet  to  head  in  a 
clean  cloth,  or  band,  somewhat  after  the  manner 
of  a  surgeon's  bandaging.  The  arms,  laid  close 
to  the  side,  were  included  in  the  wrapping.  A 
napkin  was  about  the  head  and  face.  Indeed, 
there  seems  to  be  a  survival  of  this  idea  in  our 
popular  term  of  the  "  winding-sheet  "  as  a  gar- 
ment for  the  grave.  The  cerements  of  an  Eg^/p- 
tian  mummy  better  illustrate  this  than  anything 
shown  in  the  work  of  a  modern  undertaker.  A 
reference  is  made  to  such  burial  cloths  when  the 
dead  Lazarws  came  from  his  grave  at  Bethany 


The  Resurrection  Not  a  Mere  Rising  Again       275 

at  the  call  of  Jesus :  "  He  that  was  dead  came 
forth,  bound  hand  and  foot  with  grave-clothes 
[as  our  English  translation  gives  it,  but  it  is 
more  properly  given  in  the  margin  grave-bands]  ; 
and  his  face  was  bound  about  with  a  napkin. 
Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Loose  him,  and  let  him 
go"  (John  II :  44).  When  the  body  of  Jesus 
was  granted  to  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  "  he  bought 
a  linen  cloth  [a  burial  cloth],  and,  taking  him 
[Jesus]  down,  wound  him  [rolled;  the  Greek 
word  is  "entulitto" :  to  roll  or  wrap]  in  the  linen 
[burial]  cloth,  and  laid  him  in  a  tomb  which 
had  been  hewn  out  of  a  rock ;  and  he  [Joseph] 
rolled  a  stone  against  the  door  of  the  tomb  " 
(Mark  15:  46). 

Thus  as  to  the  death  and  burial  of  Jesus,  or 
as  to  his  giving  up  his  natural  life  and  his  being 
rolled  in  the  burial  cloth  and  entombed.  The 
stone  was  sealed  by  Pilate's  order.  Now  as  to 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  on  the  third  day.  Did 
he  simply  rise  from  the  dead,  as  did  Lazarus  at 
his  call  ?  Was  his  revivification  merely  like  that 
of  Lazarus  and  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain? 
Or  was  he  really  in  his  rising  the  first-fruits  of 
the  resurrection,  in  his  passing  through  that 
change  from  the  natural  to  the  spiritual  body, 
which  all  the  redeemed  shall  pass  through,  "  in 
a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last 


276  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

trump?"  What  are  the  Bible  indications  as  to 
this?  No  human  eye  saw  the  rising  of  Jesus 
from  the  dead.  No  hand,  not  even  an  angel's 
hand,  rolled  away  the  entrance  stone,  before 
Jesus  passed  out  from  the  tomb.  When,  indeed, 
an  angel  of  the  Lord  rolled  away  the  stone  and 
sat  upon  it,  it  was  said  that  Jesus  had  already 
risen.  What,  then,  was  his  rising  from  the  dead? 
Note  the  inspired  record. 

Matthew  says  that  the  angel  said  to  the  women 
at  the  tomb,  "  Come,  see  the  place  where  the 
Lord  lay"  (Matt.  28:  6),  as  if  that  sight  itself 
would  be  proof  of  his  resurrection.  Mark  re- 
peats this  fact,  that  the  young  man  angel  said 
to  the  women  at  the  empty  tomb,  "  Behold,  the 
place  where  they  laid  him!"  (Mark  16:  6). 
Luke,  in  telling  the  story,  says  that  Peter,  look- 
ing into  the  empty  tomb,  saw  "  the  linen  cloths 
by  themselves,"  and  went  away  wondering 
(Luke  24:  12).  John  further  adds  that  Peter 
saw  "  the  linen  cloths  lying,  and  the  napkin,  that 
was  upon  his  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen 
cloths,  but  rolled  up  in  a  place  [in  its  place]  by 
itself."  And  John  also,  who  was  with  Peter, 
"  saw  [this],  and  believed  "  (John  20:  6-8).  It 
is  evident  from  this  fourfold  specific  record  that 
there  was  something  in  the  sight  itself  that  was 
a  testimony  to  the  resurrection.     This  sight  was 


The  Resurrection  Not  a  Mere  Rising  Again      277 

not  merely  a  blank,  an  absence  of  a  body.  What 
was  it? 

Jesus'  natural  body  had  been  changed  to  a  spir- 
itual body ;  his  mortal  body  had  put  on  immor- 
tality; that  which  was  sown  in  humiliation  had 
been  raised  in  glory.  Therefore  the  changed 
body  had  come  out  from  the  linen  enwrappings 
of  the  body  taken  down  from  the  cross,  leaving 
those  cerements  as  the  transfigured  butterfly 
leaves  the  chrysalis.  Thus  those  linen  enwrap- 
pings were  of  themselves  irresistible  evidence 
and  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  As  no 
human  power  could  arrange  them,  there  they 
lay,  no  fold  disturbed,  those  of  the  body  in  their 
place,  that  of  the  face  and  head,  the  napkin  by 
itself.  What  wonder  that  the  angel  called  at- 
tention to  this  great  proof  of  the  resurrection ! 
What  wonder  that  Peter  and  others  saw  and 
beheved!  And,  as  from  the  Scriptures  we 
understand,  Jesus  did  not  merely  rise  up  from  the 
dead,  as  others  before  had  risen  up  from  the 
dead,  but  was  *'  the  first-fruits  of  the  resurrec- 
tion "  harvest,  and  "  in  a  moment,  in  the  twink- 
ling of  an  eye,"  he  was  changed,  so  his  loved 
ones  are  to  be  changed  in  the  resurrection. 

Had  Jesus  risen  up  in  his  natural  body,  he 
could  at  once  have  been  recognized  by  his  loved 
ones  who  had  known  him  in  the  years  gone  by. 


278  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

But  from  Mary  Magdalene,  who  thought  he  was 
the  gardener,  to  the  disciples  with  whom  he 
walked  on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  those  who  so 
well  knew  his  natural  form  and  face  seemed  to 
have  doubts  as  to  his  identity.  His  spiritual 
body  was  no  longer  subject  to  the  conditions  of 
his  natural  body.  He  passed  out  from  the  stone- 
cnlocked  tomb.  He  entered  the  room  where 
were  his  disciples  behind  closed  doors.  His 
every  move  gave  added  proof  of  his  changed 
body  in  his  resurrection. 

Of  course,  when  Jesus  would  prove  his  iden- 
tity to  his  disciples  who  doubted,  he  would  be 
ready  to  show  his  nail-pierced  hands  and  feet,  or 
his  spear-pierced  side,  as  evidence  to  their  human 
senses,  but  this  was  a  purposeful  departure  from 
his  now  normal  state.  He  thus  adapted  himself 
to  the  limitations  and  questionings  of  those  still 
in  the  flesh.  He  thus  convinced  them  that  he 
was  not  a  mere  apparition,  a  **  ghost."  If  one 
of  our  dear  ones  in  the  spirit  life  were  permitted 
to-day  to  come  again  to  us  here  on  earth,  that 
spirit  would  have  to  be  known  to  us  by  some 
sign  or  appearance  familiar  to  our  human 
senses;  but  we  should  not  suppose  from  that 
that  therefore  the  loved  one's  normal  or  ordi- 
nary spiritual  presence  was  the  same  as  the  for- 
mer physical  presence. 


The  Resurrection  Not  a  Mere  Rising  Again      279 

When  Jesus,  on  the  third  day  after  his  cruci- 
fixion, rose  from  the  dead,  his  was  not  a  mere 
awakening  to,  and  an  uprising  in,  his  former  nat- 
ural body.  If  it  were  so,  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  could  not  be  to  us  the  assurance,  the  life, 
and  the  hope,  that  it  now  is.  But  Jesus  came 
out  of  his  linen  cloth  enwrappings,  and  out  of 
his  sealed  stone  tomb,  in  his  changed  resurrec- 
tion body.  Of  that  the  disciples  had  evidence 
in  the  very  chrysalis  cloths  themselves,  and  the 
whole  narrative  is  in  keeping  with  this  assur- 
ance. How  many  have  erred  in  the  reading  of 
the  Bible  record  as  to  this !  Let  us  not  come 
short  of  our  hope  and  faith,  as  we  are  entitled 
to  have  them  confirmed  by  this  record. 


XXXII 
"AMLN,  AND  AMLN" 

No  other  Bible  term,  or  word,  is  used  so  fre- 
quently, or  by  so  many  persons,  or  so  unmean- 
ingly, as  the  word  "  Amen  " — a  Hebrew  word. 
Jews,  Christians,  and  Muhammadans  are  as  one 
in  using  this  term  at  the  close  of  every  prayer, 
as  a  response  to  any  important  covenant  or 
agreement,  and  as  a  declaration  or  ejaculation 
in  the  announcement  of  many  an  important  truth. 
Yet  Jews,  Christians,  and  Muhammadans  fail 
of  agreement  as  to  the  precise  or  definite 
meaning  of  this  term.  Their  lexicons  and  their 
critical  commentators  are  at  variance  as  to  its 
signification,  and,  when  they  attempt  to  give  its 
supposed  equivalent  in  well-known  words,  they 
admit  that  it  does  not  always  mean  that,  or 
anything  like  it. 

In  translating  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  any 
other  language,  it  is  customary  to  transfer  this 
word  in  its  Hebrew  form,  instead  of  translating 
it ;  and  then  when  the  ordinary  religious  teacher 
attempts  its  explanation,  he  gives  a  mistaken 
rendering.  When  the  average  man  uses  the 
word  "  Amen  "  most  earnestly  and  with  greatest 

280 


"Amen,  and  Amen"  281 

emphasis,  he  knows  least  about  its  meaning.  He 
seems,  in  fact,  to  be  devout  and  hearty  in  his 
cry  of  "  Amen  "  in  proportion  to  his  lack  of  any 
clear  idea  of  its  signification. 

A  good  Christian  mother  overheard  her  little 
daughter  explaining  to  a  younger  brother  the 
meaning  of  "  Amen  "  at  the  close  of  his  evening 
prayer : 

*' '  Amen  '  means  '  You  mustn't  touch  it.'  " 
And  that  boy  was  satisfied.  He  accepted  the 
explanation  as  if  it  were  inspired.  But  his 
mother  was  shocked.  It  seemed  as  if  her  daugh- 
ter were  irreverently  leading  her  brother  astray, 
and  she  called  her  in  order  to  rebuke  her. 

*'  What  did  you  mean  by  telling  your  brother 
that  *  Amen  '  means  '  You  mustn't  touch  it '  ?  " 
"  Why  you  told  me  so,  mamma." 
"  I  told  you  so,  my  dear  ?     When  ?  " 
"  I  asked  you  what  *  Amen  '  meant,  and  you 
said,  '  Let  it  be.'     That's  what  I  told  Willie." 

Then  the  mother  remembered  that  she  had 
given  her  daughter  the  conventional  explanation 
of  ''  Amen  "  as  "So  let  it  be,"  which  the  daugh- 
ter had  interpreted  colloquially  as  *'  Let  it  be," 
or  "  Let  it  alone."  Both  mother  and  daughter 
had  their  conventional  understanding  of  that 
mysterious  term,  but  neither  daughter  nor 
mother  was  correct  in  the  case.     They  simply 


282  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

represented,  in  their  vagueness  of  view,  the  aver- 
age user  of  the  word  ''  Amen." 

Another  Httle  girl,  on  being  asked  what  she 
understood  by  "  Amen,"  said  artlessly : 

"  I  used  to  think  it  meant  *  stop,'  when  we  came 
to  the  end  of  a  prayer.  But  when  I  went  to  the 
Methodist  church  I  found  they  said  '  Amen ' 
when  they  didn't  stop,  and  weren't  agoing  to. 
Now,  I  don't  know  what  it  does  mean." 

Her  state  of  mind  is  a  common  one  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word 

It  is  useless  to  go  to  an  English  dictionary  to 
find  the  meaning  of  a  Hebrew  word  like  this. 
Nor  does  a  Hebrew  dictionary  assume  to  settle 
the  question.  The  more  common  English  idea 
is  that  "  Amen "  is  a  sort  of  supplementary 
prayer,  at  the  close  of  a  formal  or  specific  prayer; 
that  it  is  a  request  for  God  to  grant  the  petitions 
already  asked,  to  let  it  be  as  has  been  desired 
of  him.  With  this  view  of  the  word  many  use 
it  entreatingly  or  doubtingly,  as  if  saying,  "  I 
wish  you  would  do,  O  Lord,  as  you  are  asked  to 
do;  but,  of  course,  I  cannot  be  sure  that  you 
will."  Yet  "  Amen  "  is  not  a  prayer.  The  idea 
of  prayer  or  of  request  is  not  in  it.  It  has  more 
of  the  thought  of  positive  affirmation,  or  of  trust- 
ful acquiescence,  or  of  confident  response,  than 
it  has  of  petition,  even  in  those  places  where  it 


"  Amen,  and  Amen  "  283 

might  seem  to  mean  "  Let  it  be  thus. "  The 
word  has  a  sense  of  restful  assurance  in  it,  of  un- 
wavering confidence,  hardly  to  be  found  in  any 
other  word  in  any  language.  Doubt  or  ques- 
tion or  request  has  properly  no  place  in  connec- 
tion with  the  term. 

The  root  idea  of  the  Hebrew  word  "  Amen  " 
is  "  to  be  firm,"  "  to  be  stedfast,"  "  to  be  strong," 
*'  to  be  immovable."  The  same  idea  is  in  the 
earlier  Babylonian  and  in  the  later  Arabic.  A 
similar  thought  is  in  its  use  in  the  Greek.  Hence, 
wherever  the  word  is  found,  there  must  be  the 
idea  of  stability  and  resultant  confidence,  not  of 
question  or  doubt.  The  Assyrian  term  for 
*'  army,"  the  strong  support  of  the  ruler,  is  from 
the  same  root.  In  the  Arabic,  "  Al-Ameen," 
"  The  Faithful  One,"  or  "  The  Trusty  One,"  is 
one  of  the  names  given  to  Muhammad.  In  the 
Apocalypse  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  Amen :" 
"  These  things  saith  the  Amen,  the  faithful  and 
true  witness,  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of 
God"  (Rev.  3:  14). 

In  all  the  derivatives  of  this  word  the  idea  of 
unwavering  confidence,  usually  of  restful  trust 
in  a  person,  is  to  be  found  as  the  main  thought 
and  factor.  When,  at  the  beginning  of  the  his- 
tory of  God's  chosen  people,  the  Lord  called 
Abraham  to  leave  his  home,  his  people,  his  coun- 


284  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

try,  and  to  have  no  other  purpose  than  to  do  and 
to  be  as  the  Lord  would  have  him,  and  no  spe- 
cific plans  in  life,  it  is  said  (Gen.  15:  6)  that 
Abraham  "  heemeened  the  Lord  "  (''  Amen-ed 
the  Lord  "),  giving  himself  wholly  and  unreserv- 
edly to  the  Lord,  and  went  out,  not  knowing 
whither  he  went,  but  restful  in  his  unwavering 
trust  in  the  Sure  One. 

Our  English  version  of  the  Bible  renders  this 
story  of  Abraham's  act,  or  state,  *'  He  believed 
in  Jehovah ;  and  he  reckoned  it  to  him  for  right- 
eousness. "  But  this  fails  to  give  to  the  ordinary 
reader  the  idea  of  the  original ;  for  we,  with  our 
cold  Occidental  ways,  are  inclined  to  think  of 
"  belief "  as  in  some  way  connected  with  the 
idea  of  an  intellectual  assent  to  abstract  proposi- 
tions or  fundamental  truths,  while  an  Ori- 
ental has  no  conception  of  this  in  such  a 
case.  Abraham  heard  the  call  of  the  Lord,  and 
at  once  he  gave  himself  up  in  unhesitating  trust 
to  the  Lord,  nothing  doubting.  He  so  trusted 
the  Lord,  so  trusted  himself  to  the  Lord,  so  gave 
himself  up  to  the  Lord's  very  self,  that  the  Lord 
counted  him  as  a  part  of  himself.  This  was  the 
essence  of  an  "  Amen,"  of  being  an  amen  to  the 
Lord's  call. 

In  Luther's  Catechism  the  true  idea  of 
"  Amen  "  is  brought  out  in  its  definition ;  but  the 


"Amen,  and  Amen"  285 

suggestion  of  petition  rather  than  of  unwaver- 
ing assurance  is  added,  as  if  that  were  one  of 
its  meanings,  so  that  the  average  learner  is  still 
in  doubt  as  to  its  real  significance.  Thus :  "  Amen 
meaneth  namely,  assuredly,  that  I  am  sure  that 
petitions  of  this  kind  are  accepted  by  my  heav- 
enly Father,  and  heard  by  him ;  because  he  hath 
commanded  us  that  we  should  pray  after  this 
manner,  and  hath  promised  that  he  will  hear  us. 
Amen,  Amen !  That  is,  truly,  certainly,  so  be  it.'* 
This  final  explanation  tends  to  throw  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  word  in  doubt,  as  it  is  in  so 
many  minds.  The  Church  of  England  Cate- 
chism gives  the  definition  of  "  Amen  "  simply  as 
"  So  be  it." 

In  the  Westminster  Catechism  it  is  said  that  at 
"  the  conclusion  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,"  "  in  tes- 
timony to  our  desire  and  assurance  to  be  heard, 
we  say  '  Amen.'  "  But  it  will  be  admitted  by 
users  of  that  Catechism  generally  that  the  idea 
of  "  Amen "  as  expressing  a  ''  desire  to  be 
heard  "  is  far  more  prominent  than  an  "  assur- 
ance "  that  we  are  heard.  Yet  it  is  this  latter 
thought  that  is  dominant  in  the  word  itself.  In 
the  Catechism  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  it  is  said,  somewhat  vaguely,  that  "  Amen 
signifies  verily,  truly,  or  *  so  let  it  be,'  and  at  the 
end  of  our  prayer  expresses  a  hearty  wish  that 


286  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

what  we  have  asked  for  may  be  granted  or  ac- 
compHshed." 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  gives  the  true  defi- 
nition of  "  Amen,"  without  any  doubtful  note : 
"  Amen  signifies :  It  shall  truly  and  certainly  be. 
for  my  prayer  is  more  assuredly  heard  of  God 
than  I  feel  in  my  heart  that  I  desire  these  things 
of  him."  If  all  who  have  been  brought  up  under 
this  teaching  use  the  word  Amen  in  their  prayers 
with  this  view  of  its  meaning,  they  at  least  em- 
ploy it  in  faith,  nothing  doubting. 

As  the  word  "  Amen,"  with  its  derivatives,  is 
much  the  same  in  the  Arabic  as  in  the  Hebrew, 
an  interest  attaches  to  its  use  in  Arabic.  The 
first  chapter,  or  sura,  of  the  Quran,  called  the 
Fatihah,  is  employed  among  "  the  faithful "  as 
an  agreement,  or  covenant,  or  pledge  of  fidelity, 
in  entering  upon  any  common  undertaking  oi 
important  movement.  At  the  conclusion  of  that 
recitation  "  Amen  "  is  always  uttered  devoutly, 
not  as  a  prayer,  but  as  a  pledge  of  sincerity  and 
faith.  In  the  cities,  as  in  the  desert,  of  the  East, 
two  men,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  vital  contract, 
recite  together  that  sura,  with  their  open  palms 
as  a  book  before  them,  and  at  its  close  they 
reverently  repeat  together  the  "  Amen,"  as  if 
th.nt  bound  the  whole  beyond  recall. 

The  word  "  Amen  "  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the 


"Amen,  and  Amen"  287 

original  record  of  that  sura,  yet  it  always  accom- 
panies its  recitation.  Arabic  commentators 
seem  to  be  not  quite  sure  as  to  the  meaning  of 
this  word  "  Amen, "  but  they  recognize  its  im- 
portance, and  in  all  their  suggested  meanings 
the  idea  of  stability  and  certitude  prevails. 

In  the  Arabic,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  the  verb  form 
of  '*  Amen  "  carries  the  idea  of  trusting  and  of 
being  trustworthy,  and  it  is  employed  as  indi- 
cating the  unqualified  committal  of  self  to  an- 
other. The  writer  once  asked  a  learned  Arabic 
scholar,  who  was  a  native  of  the  East,  what  he 
understood  by  this  term  amana.  He  replied 
earnestly:  "Amana  means  that  a  man  gets  out 
of  himself  and  gets  into  another;  he  gives  him- 
self up  wholly  to  another,  and  trusts  him  utterly. 
It  means  that,  and  a  great  deal  more.  Amana 
means  so  much  that  I  can't  tell  you  all  it  means.  " 

Dr.  Edkins,  the  Chinese  scholar,  suggests 
("The  Religions  of  China,"  p.  Ii8)  that  a 
correspondent  word  in  the  Chinese  "  for  faith- 
fulness means  both  to  be  trustworthy  and  also 
to  trust.  "    It  is  employed  of  devoted  friendship. 

In  the  Greek,  the  word  "  Amen,  "  transferred 
in  that  form  from  the  Hebrew,  is  variously  trans- 
lated, but  in  every  instance  the  idea  seems  to  be 
that  of  "  verily,  "  "  truly,  "  "  certainly,  "  or  of 
"  fidelity  "  and  "  confidence.  "    The  idea  is  never 


288  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

of  petition  or  question,  but  always  of  assurance 
and  restful  trust.  Jesus  frequently  opens  his 
more  important  teachings  with  the  w.ords 
"  Amen,  "  or  "  Amen,  amen,  "  in  affirmation  of 
their  certainty  and  importance.  Our  English 
Bible  renders  this  term  "  verily,"  or  *'  verily, 
verily"  (Matt.  5:  18;  8:  10;  10:  15;  Mark  3:  28; 
8:  12;  Luke  4:  24;  12:  37;  John  i :  51 ;  5:  19; 
6:  26,  etc.).  There  can  be  no  thought  of  peti- 
tion or  of  doubt  in  such  an  emphatic  asseveration 
on  the  part  of  Jesus. 

The  promises  of  God  are  said  to  be,  in  Christ, 
"  Amen,  unto  the  glory  of  God  through  us  " 
(2  Cor.  1 :  20).  They  are  all  sure  and  true.  At 
the  giving  of  thanks,  when  praise,  not  petition, 
was  in  order,  a  believer  was  to  respond,  grate- 
fully, "Amen"  (i  Cor.  14:  16). 

As  in  the  Greek,  so  in  the  Hebrew,  all  the 
uses  of  "  Amen, "  in  the  Old  Testament,  are 
consistent  with  its  meaning  as  an  expression  of 
unwavering  confidence.  The  idea  of  petition  or 
request  never  has  a  place  there.  When  a  woman 
charged  with  marital  unfaithfulness  was  brought 
before  the  priest,  under  the  ancient  law  of  Israel, 
the  priest  invoked  the  judgment  of  God  on  her 
if  she  was  guilty.  At  this  invocation,  it  is  re- 
corded :  "  And  the  woman  shall  say,  Amen, 
amen"   (Num.  5:  22).     It  is  evident  here  that 


"Amen,  and  Amen"  289 

the  woman,  claiming  to  be  innocent,  confidently 
appeals  to  God  as  faithful  and  true,  and  there- 
fore sure  to  make  clear  her  innocence.  "  Cer- 
tainly, certainly,  "  she  says,  "  Truly,  truly, "  and 
she  leaves  herself  and  her  case  with  God.  It  is 
not  a  prayer  on  her  part,  but  an  expression  of 
her  confidence  in  the  fidelity  of  God.  In  con- 
sistency with  its  meaning  elsewhere,  *'  Amen  " 
might  indeed  here  mean  *'  Let  it  be  so.  I  am 
glad  to  rest  the  issue  with  God."  But  that  is 
trustful  acquiescence,  not  petition. 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  this  illustration 
of  the  use  of  "  Amen  "  is  the  one  passage  in  the 
Bible  which  has  been  understood  as  a  petition, 
and  has  led  to  the  rendering  of  it  as  "  So  let  it 
be,  "  or  *'  So  be  it.  "  From  this  instance  alone 
many  have  come  to  suppose  that  '*  Amen  "  is  a 
request  for  God's  favor;  until,  indeed,  a  great 
majority  of  its  users  employ  it  only  as  a  call  for 
a  blessing  that  is  by  no  means  assured. 

The  Talmudists,  discussing  the  meaning  of 
"  Amen,"  suggest  the  threefold  meaning  of 
(i)  an  oath,  (2)  an  acceptance  of  spoken  words, 
and  (3)  a  confirmation  of  words  uttered.  They 
cite  in  proof  of  these  meanings  the  response  of 
the  accused  woman  (Num.  5:  22)  ;  the  response 
of  the  people  to  the  blessings  and  cursings  at 
Ebal  and  Gerizim    (Deut.  27:  11-26);  and  the 


290  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

utterance  of  the  prophet  in  confident  affirmation 
of  his  commanded  message  (Jer.  28:  6).  These 
meanings  are  all  consistent  with  the  idea  of 
unwavering  trust  in  the  fidelity  and  immovable- 
ness  of  the  Lord. 

In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  even  of  old 
there  was  a  lack  of  apprehension  of  the  true 
meaning  of  "  Amen  "  on  the  part  of  many  who 
employed  it,  the  Talmudists  pointed  out  popular 
forms  of  this  response  or  assurance  that  could 
not  have  God's  approval.  Thus  there  was  the 
"  hasty  Amen, "  or  the  '*  Amen  cut  short " 
through  inattention ;  and  the  *'  orphan  Amen,  " 
when  its  user  had  not  heard  the  prayer  or  bene- 
diction to  which  it  referred.*  The  *'  hasty  "  and 
"  orphan  "  Amens  are  not  unknown  in  Chris- 
tian congregations  nowadays. 

*'  Islam,  "  or  "  submission,  "  is  the  expression 
of  the  Muhammadan's  recognition  of  the  inevi- 
table. He  accepts  the  decrees  of  fate,  because 
there  is  nothing  else  for  him  to  do.  "  Amen,  " 
on  the  other  hand,  is  the  trustful  believer's  con- 
fident committal  of  himself,  his  petitions,  and 
his  cause,  to  his  loving  Father  and  Friend,  be- 
cause he  is  glad  to  do  it,  and  because  it  is  the 
best  thing  that  could  be  done. 

^  These  facts  as  to  the  Talmud  I  have  on  the  authority  of  the  em- 
inent Talmudist,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Marcus  Jastrow. 


"Amen,  and  Amen"  291 

In  all  the  Bible  uses  of  the  word  "  Amen," 
and  in  the  meanings  of  that  word  as  found  in  the 
Babylonian,  the  Hebrew,  the  Arabic,  the  Greek, 
and  the  EngHsh,  it  is  evident  that  the  prevailing 
idea  is  that  of  strength  and  confidence,  resulting 
from  unwavering  trust  in  one  who  will  not  fail. 
Doubt,  question,  or  anxiety,  has  no  place  in  its 
use.  It  is  thus  in  connection  with  a  prayer,  as  m 
connection  with  a  declaration  of  truth.  Whether 
it  be  a  blessing  that  is  spoken,  a  series  of  peti- 
tions that  is  offered,  or  an  invoking  of  God's 
intervention  and  decision  that  is  made,  what- 
ever doubt  there  may  be  at  any  point  up  to  its 
close,  the  use  of  the  final  "  Amen  "  is  a  confident 
cry  without  hesitation  or  fear.  To  say  "  Amen  " 
is  not  to  say  "Oh  that  it  might  be  so  !  "  but 
rather  ''Certainly,"  "Truly,"  "Surely,"  "It 
Vvill  be  right  because  God  is  God,  and  his  will  is 
to  be  done.  " 

"  Amen  "  was  not  a  term  used  in  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.  It  seemed  to  be  taken  for  granted 
there  that  God  would  be  faithful,  and  be  ever 
true  to  his  promises.  It  is  said  that  in  the  great 
synagogue  in  Alexandria  an  attendant  stood  on 
a  platform  in  the  center,  and  when  the  time 
came  for  all  to  respond  he  waved  a  flag,  and  all 
then  answered  "  Amen." 

It  is  said  by  the  rabbins  that  he  who  joined 


292  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

sincerely  in  the  "  Amen, "  in  the  synagogue 
service,  had  a  share  in  the  whole  prayer,  although 
he  took  no  other  part. 

"  Amen  "  is  never  a  minor  portion  of  a  prayer. 
It  is  the  strongest  and  best  part  of  it.  It  is  not 
to  be  spoken  in  a  minor  key,  or  in  a  low  tone  and 
hesitatingly.  That  cry  at  least  ought  to  be  a 
glad  and  triumphant  one,  spoken  from  the  heart 
and  aloud  with  the  lips,  in  confident  assurance 
and  in  restful  truth.  "  Amen  and  amen. " 
Whatever  is  our  prayer,  we  should  be  able  to 
leave  it  with  God  in  faith.  In  this  committal, 
at  least,  "  whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.  " 


XXXIIl 
CAN  MAN  DEFINE  INFINITE  TRUTH? 

("We  should  say  it  reverently,  but  we  can  say 
it  positively,  that,  as  to  the  disclosure  to  us  of 
things  infinite  and  spiritual,  God  is  limited  by 
our  limitations.  It  is  impossible  that,  while  we 
are  in  the  limitations  of  the  natural  and  the 
finite,  we  should  be  able  to  comprehend  in  its 
incomprehensibleness,  and  to  conceive  in  its  in- 
conceivableness,  the  measures  of  the  immeasur- 
able and  the  bounds  of  the  boundless,  in  spheres 
and  realms  above  and  beyond  all  that  we  know 
or  can  comprehend.  This  is  not  because  God  is 
not  willing  to  impart,  but  because  we  in  our 
present  state  are  unable  to  receive,  the  truth  as 
it  is  concerning  matters  utterly  beyond  our 
sphere  and  scope  of  knowledge.  / 

It  is  so,  in  a  sense,  with  a  child  and  its  parent, 
even  while  both  are  in  the  same  human  sphere.  If 
a  father  who  has  had  trials  and  experiences  in 
life  from  which  he  would  have  his  loved  child 
spared,  has  a  little  babe  for  which  he  is  respon- 
sible, can  that  father  make  all  this  clear  to  that 
babe  while  it  is  a  babe  ?  Suppose  the  father 
takes    the    child    when   six    weeks    old,    or    six 

293 


294  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

months,  or  even  six  years,  and  tells  it  what  are 
life's  severest  trials  and  perils,  pointing  out 
every  danger  to  be  shunned  and  every  duty  to 
be  performed ;  will  the  child  know  it  all  ?  If  that 
effort  be  not  successful,  why  is  the  failure  ? 
Is  the  cause  in  the  father's  unwillingness  to  give 
needed  knowledge,  or  in  the  child's  incapacity  to 
receive  it  ?  This  is  in  the  human  sphere,  where 
father  and  child  are  on  the  same  plane  of  exist- 
ence and  being.  But  where  one  is  finite  and  the 
other  infinite,  how  much  vaster  the  difference  ! 
Who  would  say  or  think  that  the  difference  be- 
tween the  wisest  human  father  and  his  little  babe 
is  as  wide  and  real  as  is  that  between  the  wisest 
human  being  and  his  Infinite  and  Almighty 
Father  ?  Yet  the  case  being  as  we  know  it  to 
be,  what  folly  it  is  to  think  that  man  in  the 
physical  and  finite  sphere  can,  while  he  is  in  those 
limitations,  comprehend  or  define  what  is  in  the 
sphere  of  the  spiritual  and  the  infinite. 
y  Even  within  the  range  of  our  ordinary  human 
senses,  we  can  perceive  that  the  lack  of  but  a 
single  sense  limits  and  restricts,  not  only  in 
power  of  performance,  but  in  capacity  of  com- 
prehension, one  who  lacks  that  sense,  in  com- 
parison with  one  who  possesses  it.  What  docs 
one  born  blind  know  about  the  beauty  of  varied 
colors  ?    How  useless  to  him  is  any  description 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  295 

of  the  hidden  beauties  of  sight,  when  never  so 
eloquently  described  by  an  enthusiastic  artist  I 
The  permanent  limitation  is  in  the  one  blind, 
not  in  the  one  who  sees  and  tries  to  enlighten 
by  words.  So  of  one  born  deaf,  in  comparison 
with  a  lover  of  music  and  of  sweet  sounds.  How 
can  one  describe  the  soft  tones  of  an  ^olian  harp 
to  an  ever-closed  ear  ?  And  so  of  each  one  of 
our  physical  senses.  How  can  it  be  less  diffi- 
cult for  one  in  the  realm  of  the  spiritual  and  the 
infinite  to  communicate  the  truth  as  to  that  realm 
to  one  who  has  no  experience  or  knowledge  or 
powers  of  conception  beyond  the  material  and 
finite  ?^.- 

Even  when  an  inspired  writer  who  has  been 
given  a  message  to  ordinary  man  seeks  to  con- 
vey in  that  message  some  knowledge  or  idea  of 
a  realm  and  sphere  beyond  and  above  the  human 
and  finite,  he  is  necessitated  to  employ  terms 
that  suggest,  but  do  not  define,  the  truth.  Thus 
the  Apostle  Paul,  who  declares  that  he  has  had 
disclosed  to  him  by  God's  power  some  of  the 
wonders  and  beauties  of  the  spiritual  realm  and 
sphere,  is  unable  to  define  in  human  words  any 
one  feature  of  his  wonderful  knowledge.  He 
says  that  God's  way  are  ^'  past  tracing  out " 
(Rom.  II :  33).  Even  what  he  has  seen  and 
heard  of  the  spiritual  life  and  sphere  he  refers 


296  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

to  as  ''  unspeakable  [or,  unutterable  in]  words  '* 
(2  Cor.  12 :  4).  If  Paul  had  known  less  he  might 
have  felt  differently,  or  have  had  freer  and  more 
confident  utterance  about  such  things. 

Paul,  referring  to  these  things,  uses  words  that 
are  at  the  best  not  explicit  or  exact,  and  that  are 
evidently  contradictory  and  obviously  insufficient 
for  their  purpose.  Thus  he  says  that  at  the  close 
of  our  earthly  life  our  personality  shall  be,  in 
God's  great  field,  "  sown  a  natural  body "  and 
"  raised  a  spiritual  body.  "  But  that  is  an  obvious 
contradiction  of  terms,  and  it  is  clearly  employed 
as  such  because  of  our  human  limitations.  That 
which  is  a  spirit  is  not  a  body.  But  Paul  uses 
these  words  as  suggestive,  not  as  definitive.  Thus 
he  writes  of  *'  spiritual  meat "  and  "  spiritual 
drink,  "  and  of  a  "  spiritual  rock.  "  If  we  take 
those  words  as  suggestive  of  what  cannot  be  de- 
fined in  words,  we  do  well.  But  if  we  take  them 
as  descriptive  and  definitive,  we  are  childish,  but 
not  child-like,  in  dealing  with  the  incomprehen- 
sible and  the  undefinable. 

Again  the  Apostle  John,  out  of  spiritual  visions 
and  through  revelations  to  him  by  inspiration, 
suggests,  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  beauties  of  the 
New  Jerusalem,  or  of  the  spiritual  city  in  the 
realm  of  the  infinite.  He  speaks  of  the  streets 
of  "  pure  gold,  as  it  were  transparent  glass, " 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  297 

and  of  the  "  wall  of  jasper,"  and  of  the  twelve 
gates  of  pearl,  "  each  one  of  the  several  gates 
was  of  one  pearl"  (Rev.  21).  And  the  dimen- 
sions and  measurements  of  this  heavenly  city, 
the  New  Jerusalem,  are  specifically  given  in  the 
record. 

Now  this  description  has  its  value  as  sug- 
gestive to  mankind,  but  not  as  an  exact  and  pre- 
cise defining  of  the  things  spoken  of.  Yet  even 
Christian  scholars  and  valued  biblical  exegetes 
in  modem  times  have  insisted  that,  because  the 
Bible  is  given  to  instruct  man  in  his  present 
sphere  and  limitations,  its  words  must  be  taken 
as  the  literal  truth,  and  believed  accordingly. 
There  stands  out  in  my  memory  a  sermon  on 
this  subject  by  a  clergyman  who  was  widely 
loved  and  honored.  He  said  with  reference  to 
the  description  of  the  New  Jerusalem  in  the 
Apocalypse  that  these  words  must  be  taken  lit- 
erally, and  not  supposed  to  be  merely  figurative,, 
or  only  as  a  suggestion  of  the  truth.  He  said:- 
'*  If  God  had  wanted  to  give  us  an  exact  descrip- 
tion of  the  New  Jerusalem  as  it  is,  and  as  it  is  to 
be,  what  words  could  he  have  employed  that 
would  be  more  specific  than  those  chosen  by  him 
in  this  description  of  it  as  it  is  ?  "  As  he  read 
over  again  the  text,  he  warned  his  hearers  against 
seeking  to  find  some  other  meaning  for  Bible 


298  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

words  than  their  obvious  and  plain  meaning.  And 
that  was  a  common  way  of  looking  at  Bible 
teachings  a  generation  and  more  ago. 

I  once  heard  an  eminent  divine  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church, — one  of  a  family  of  distin- 
guished clergymen  in  this  country, — express  simi- 
lar views  of  Bible  truth.  All  would  recognize  his 
honored  name  if  it  were  mentioned.  He  took 
the  measurements  of  the  Holy  City  as  given  in 
its  four-square  form  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  21 : 
16),  and  showed  mathematically  that  there  was 
actually  space  there  for  housing  all  the  sons  of 
men  that  have  ever  existed  in  the  six  thousand 
years  since  Adam  (that  was  the  period  of  man's 
existence  on  earth  as  claimed  in  those  days).  He 
allowed  three  generations  to  a  century,  and  he 
estimated  the  world's  population  at  the  numbers 
now  existing,  and  the  same  from  the  days  of 
Adam  to  the  end  of  the  six  thousand  years.  In 
this  estimate  or  calculation  he  had  one  series  of 
,  tenements  above  another  after  the  manner  of 
the  sky-scraper  buildings  of  to-day ;  as  "  the 
length  and  the  breadth  and  the  height  thereof  are 
equal.  "  His  calculation  allowed  a  residence  for 
every  soul  equal  to  the  dimensions  of  the  average 
city  house  lot  of  to-day.  Was  not  that  a  liberal 
allowance  for  the  average  soul  ?  It  would  cer- 
tainly seem  to  be  fully  enough  for  some  souls. 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Tmth  299 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  such  teaching  as 
to  Bible  literature  that  I  and  others  were  brought 
up.  But  as  I  have  elsewhere  shown,  Dr.  Horace 
Bushnell  threw  new  light  on  the  Bible  in  his 
epoch-making  essay,  "  Our  Gospel  a  Gift  to  the 
Imagination.  "  I  was  thus  led  out  of  thick  dark- 
ness toward  the  light.  But  even  good  Dr.  Bush- 
nell did  not  follow  to  its  legitimate  and  necessary 
conclusion  the  great  truth  concerning  Bible  teach- 
ings and  phraseology  that  he  enunciated.  I  even 
ventured  to  say  to  him  that  this  was  so  when  the 
good  Doctor  first  read  to  his  ministerial  brethren 
his  new  volume  on  *'  Forgiveness  and  Law,  "  giv- 
ing his  later  ideas  of  the  profoundest  theology, 
as  preferable  to  that  then  prevalent. 

Walking  away  from  that  gathering  with  Dr. 
Bushnell,  I  said  to  him  in  daring  frankness, 
"  Doctor,  you  know  how  I  look  up  to  your 
greatness,  and  what  hard  work  you  had  to  teach 
me  some  of  your  great  lessons.  But  the  one 
that  was  most  to  me  was  that  our  gospel  is  a 
gift  to  the  imagination,  because  God  has  to  use 
terms  that  suggest  rather  than  define  theological 
truths.  Yet  now,  having  taught  me  that,  you  at- 
tempt to  show  the  outlines  of  a  new  theology. 
When  I  get  to  heaven  I  may  find  that  your  new 
view  is  a  correct  one.  But  I  can't  take  it  in  this 
being."      At    this    the    Doctor    laughed    good- 


300  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

naturedly.  I  have  never  stopped  thinking  in  the 
Hne  in  which  he  first  started  me.  And  the  pres- 
ent chapter  is  one  of  the  results. 

Many  persons,  even  eminent  theologians  and 
profound  thinkers,  to  this  day  seem  to  lose  sight 
of  the  truth  that  there  is  no  time  or  measure  of 
time  in  eternity,  and  that  to  speak  of  past  or 
future  with  God  is  to  lose  sight  of  the  truth  that 
in  eternity  there  is  only  the  ever-present.  Thus 
it  always  has  been ;  thus  it  always  must  be.  God 
who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  be,  is  co-existent  with 
eternity.  To  speak  of  the  past  or  the  future  with 
God  is  to  employ  human  phrases  with  reference 
to  the  infinite  and  eternal ;  as  when  we  speak  of 
a  **  spiritual  body, "  or  "  spiritual  meat^, "  or 
"  spiritual  drink, "  or  of  the  self-contradictory 
term   "  spirit-matter.  '* 

"  But  forget  not  this  one  thing,  beloved,  that 
one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years, 
and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day.  "  That  is  no 
rash  saying,  but  is  the  statement  of  an  inspired 
writer;  and  even  that  is  not  to  be  taken  literally, 
but  obviously  as  a  mere  suggestion.  In  former 
days  it  was  the  custom  to  take  that  passage  lit- 
erally, and  to  explain  it  by  saying  that  six  days 
of  labor  were  to  be  followed  by  a  day  of  rest. 
Thus  it  was  in  the  creation,  and  thus  it  must  be 
in  the  final  culmination  ;  that  was  a  common  way 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  301 

of  looking  at  it.  As  with  God  a  thousand  years 
are  as  one  day,  so  six  thousand  years  of  the 
earth's  continuance  are  as  six  days;  and  those 
six  thousand  years  or  days  are  to  be  followed  by 
a  day  or  period  of  rest,  in  the  millennium  of  sab- 
bath repose.  How  many  times  I  have  heard  it 
said  that  the  millennium  is  to  begin  at  the  period 
of  six  thousand  years  from  creation  !  But  that 
Bible  statement,  as  we  now  perceive,  does  not 
mean  that.  It  indicates,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  measures  of  time  do  not  apply  to  eternity. 
Eternity  has  no  periods  or  stages  like  time,  such 
as  days  or  years  or  ages.  It  has  neither  past  nor 
future;  it  is  always  the  ever-present. 

We  have  to  employ  human  phrases  and  figures 
of  time  in  order  to  suggest  the  infinite  and  eter- 
nal. In  this  sense  we  can  say  that  with  God, 
who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  be,  the  eternal  I  AM, 
the  creation  and  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  the  birth 
and  the  crucifixion  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
and  Christ's  second  coming,  and  the  day  of  the 
final  judgment,  and  the  end  of  the  world  and  of 
the  age,  are  all  in  God's  sight  as  in  the  same 
instant.  How  meaningless  in  view  of  this  truth 
are  any  words  that  seem  to  involve  the  thought 
of  future !  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  plan- 
ning or  deciding  as  to  the  future  with  One  who 
is  always  the  Ever-Present.     Such  a  phrase  can 


302  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

seem  to  have  an  explicit  meaning,  and  thus  can 
be  a  means  of  confusion  and  worry  to  one  who 
is  finite  and  human ;  and  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
used,  or  misused,  by  ordinary,  or  even  by  extra- 
ordinary, minds,  it  is  utterly  unreal  and  untrue. 

We  know  that  in  our  ordinary  sleep  we  may 
live  years  in  a  few  minutes  of  dream  or  thought, 
and  that  in  our  waking  thoughts  we  may  go  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth  and  to  the  bounds  of  the 
remotest  fixed  star  in  a  second's  time ;  for 
thought  is  not  limited  like  matter.  In  view  of 
this  truth,  what  folly  it  is  for  one  who  is  in  time 
and  in  the  flesh  to  attempt  to  limit  and  define  in 
human  words  the  spiritual  and  the  infinite  and 
the  eternal !  As  God's  children  on  earth  come  in 
the  progress  of  ages  to  know  more  they  will  as- 
sume to  know  less.  They  will  see  that  the  spir- 
itual and  the  eternal  and  the  infinite  cannot  be 
stated  or  defined  in  human  words.  What  folly 
must  our  present  wisdom  seem  in  God's  sight ! 

Bible  statements  concerning  God's  planning,  or 
acting,  or  changing  his  plans  or  actions,  as  to 
particular  men's  conduct  or  destiny,  are  sugges- 
tions to  men  as  to  their  duty  and  dependence. 
But  to  use  such  statements  as  if  they  literally 
applied  to  or  included  God,  who  is  the  Ever 
Eternal,  not  subject  to  the  conditions  of  time, 
is   utterly   and   always    incorrect   and   improper. 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  303 

How  the  best  of  men  have  been  misled  by  such 
sad  misreadings  and  perversions  of  Bible  teach- 
ings! 

We  recognize  the  folly  and  falsity  of  Mormon 
excesses  in  the  application  of  anthropological 
views  as  applied  to  God  in  his  relations  to  hu- 
manity. Thus  they  claim  that  God  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Bible  as  having  a  ''  face  "  and  a  "  back  " 
and  **  arms  "  and  *'  fingers  "  and  *'  feet ;"  there- 
fore he  must  have  a  form  like  man's.  We  admit 
the  absurdity  of  this ;  but  we  have  not  sufficiently 
recognized  the  error  of  every  religious  writer 
who  speaks  of  or  deals  with  God's  planning  or 
acting  as  if  there  were,  or  had  been,  any  pos- 
sibility of  human  measures,  as  of  time,  in  eter- 
nity. The  moment  we  depart  from  the  truth 
that  eternity  is  ever  and  always  and  only  the 
present,  and  not  the  past  or  the  future,  we  depart 
from  the  proper  way  of  thinking  of  God,  whose 
being  is  suggested  but  not  defined  to  man  in 
human  language,  whether  used  in  the  Bible  or 
elsewhere.    The  other  is  the  Mormon  method. 

Man  having  before  him  the  thought  of  systems 
of  human  doctrine  and  the  requirements  and  lim- 
itations of  human  ideas,  is  careful  to  declare  and 
affirm  explicitly  and  definitely  that  God  is  not  the 
author  of  sin ;  that  God  ordains  only  good,  but 
permits   evil.     But  God,  being  bound  or  ham- 


304  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

pered  by  no  such  human  Hmitations,  does  not 
hesitate  to  declare  and  affirm  explicitly :  "  I  am 
Jehovah,  and  there  is  none  else.  I  form  the  light 
and  create  darkness;  I  make  peace,  and  create 
evil.  I  am  Jehovah,  that  doeth  all  these  things  " 
(Isa.  45:  6,  7).  And  again  it  is  said  by  the  in- 
spired writer  that  "  an  evil  spirit  from  God  came 
mightily  upon  Saul"  (i  Sam.  18:  10),  and  simi- 
larly again  and  again.  These  obviously  are  not 
definitive  statements ;  for  God's  nature  or  meth- 
ods cannot  be  stated  in  human  words ;  but  they 
are  suggestions  of  the  truth  that  God  is  over  all 
that  we  know  or  know  of. 

"His  greatness  is  unsearchable"  (Psa.  145: 
3).  So  of  every  Bible  statement  as  to  God's 
foreknowing  or  predestinating:  they  are  sug- 
gestions of  a  truth  that  can  cheer  and  inspire 
man ;  they  are  not  a  declaration  or  a  definition  of 
God's  power  or  plans  in  the  inconceivable  eter- 
nity. 

Human  writers  are  careful  to  insist  that  God 
never  causes  man  to  sin.  But  God  in  his  Word, 
as  if  not  careful  to  consider  the  bounds  of  human 
beliefs,  records  as  to  a  particular  individual  such 
distinct  and  seemingly  inconsistent  statements  of 
fact  as  these :  "  I  [the  Lord]  will  harden  Pha- 
raoh's heart"  (Exod.  7:  3).  "And  Jehovah 
hardened  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  "  (Exod.  9:  12). 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  305 

And  again,  "  Pharaoh  hardened  his  [own] 
heart"  (Exod.  8:  32).  And  yet  again,  without 
saying  who  was  the  cause  of  the  evil  doing, 
"  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  "  (Exod.  T.2.2). 
These  and  other  seeming  contradictions  in 
God's  Word,  and  these  hopeless  inconsistencies 
in  man's  methods  of  thought  and  statement,  are 
but  added  illustrations  of  the  different  aims  and 
purposes  of  the  two  documents,  /^kid's  Word 
suggests  to  man  truths  about  God  that  cannot 
be  expressed  or  defined  in  human  language. 
Man's  systems  of  theology  are  at  the  best 
attempts  to  show  that  man  understands  and  can 
explicitly  and  accurately  explain  God's  plan  and 
purposes  with  reference  to  creation  and  to  cre- 
ated beings.  They  are  vain  human  efforts  to 
comprehend  the  incomprehensible,  to  explain 
the  inexplicable,  to  fix  limits  to  the  illimitable, 
and  to  define  in  human  words  the  indefinable 
characteristics  of  the  spiritual,  the  infinite, 
the  ineffable,  and  the  eternal.  Of  course, 
the  attempt  is  a  hopeless  one.  God,  on 
the  other  hand,  suggests  to  man  in  human 
words  in  the  Bible  what  will  inform  and  guide 
him  in  his  duties  and  dangers,  his  privileges  and 
possibilities,  and  the  enabling  power  and  assist- 
ance he  can  have  from  God  in  God's  service  and 
in  aiding  those  whom  God  loves  and  whom  God 


306  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

privileges  man  to  aid.  But  God  does  not  attempt 
to  define  to  man  in  the  Bible  pages  explicit  char- 
acteristics and  specific  methods  of  God.  For 
these  cannot  be  made  clear  to  man,  even  by  God, 
while  man  is  finite  and  God  is  ever  infinite,  and 
while  man  is  in  time,  which  changes  and  passes 
away,  and  God  is  in  eternity,  which  is  ever  the 
same,  and  which  is  incomprehensible  to  finite  man 
while  he  is  in  time. 

God  is  more  and  vaster  and  better  than  any 
deSnition  or  description  of  him  as  given  to  man 
m  any  human  system  of  doctrine.  With  the  pass- 
ing ages  we  grow  beyond  some  conceptions  of 
God  and  of  his  ways  which  our  fathers  held  to 
and  prized,  but  we  have  not  given  up  enough  of 
these  errors  so  long  as  we  cling  to  the  thought 
that  there  is  or  has  been  Time,  or  its  measures 
or  uses,  in  Eternity,  or  with  God. 

After  the  above  was  written,  and  was  read  by 
the  Rev.  Professor  Dr.  E.  T.  Bartlett,  of  the 
Episcopal  Divinity  School,  of  Philadelphia,  he 
called  the  writer's  attention  to  St.  Augustine  on 
this  very  subject.  In  his  De  Doctrina  Christiana 
(Bk.  I,  ch.  VI),  written  A.  D.  397,  St.  Augustine, 
after  speaking  of  the  Trinity  in  metaphysical 
terms  and  definitions,  as  compared  to  the  Atha- 
nasian  creed,  says : 

*'  Have  we  said  anything  or  given  utterance  to 


Can  Man  Define  Infinite  Truth  307 

anything  worthy  of  God?  On  the  contrary,  I* 
feel  only  that  I  have  wished  to  speak.  But  if  I 
have  spoken,  it  is  not  that  which  I  wished  to  say. 
Whence  do  I  know  this,  except  because  God  is 
ineffable?  But  that  which  has  been  said  by  me^ 
if  it  were  ineffable,  could  not  have  been  said. 
And  also  for  this  reason  God  may  not  be  said 
even  to  be  ineffable,  viz.,  because  when  even  that 
is  said,  something  is  said.  And  then  an  inde- 
scribable conflict  of  words  follows,  because  if 
that  is  ineffable  which  cannot  be  said,  then  it  is 
not  ineffable  because  it  can  be  at  least  said  to  be 
ineffable.  This  conflict  of  words  is  avoided  by 
silence  rather  than  reconciled  by  speech.  And 
yet  when  nothing  worthy  of  God  can  be  said, 
nevertheless  he  allows  the  human  voice  to  render 
its  service,  and  wishes  us  to  rejoice  in  his  praise 
with  our  words.  For  thence  it  is  that  he  is  even 
called  God  (Deus).  For  it  is  not  really  in  the 
sound  of  those  two  syllables  that  he  himself  be- 
comes known ;  but  nevertheless  all  who  know 
the  Latin  language  are  moved  by  the  sound  of 
those  syllables  to  think  of  a  nature  that  is  most 
excellent  and  immortal." 
Again  St.  Augustine  says : 
"  God  is  known  better  by  not  knowing." 
"  Of  him  the  soul  has  no  knowledge,  except 
knowing  that  it  does  not  know  him." 


308  Our  Misunderstood  Bible 

"  And  what  shall  we  do  ?  Shall  we  be  silent  ? 
Would  that  that  were  permitted !  For  peradven- 
ture  by  being  silent  some  thought  might  be 
framed  worthy  of  a  subject  ineffable." 

St.  Augustine  might  indeed  seem  almost  as 
careless,  even  if  not  unsound,  in  precise  theolog- 
ical statements,  as  the  Bible. 


SCRIPTURE  INDEX 


GENESIS 

TEXT  PAGE 

I  :  26 247 

I  :  26,  27 267 

2:3 "I 

2:7 266 

3  :  15 53 

12  : 1-4 53 

15  :  i-<5 53 

IS  :  6 283 

17  :  14 263 

18  :  17-19 53 

29-31 241 

29  :  20 215 

31  :  44-53 242 

31  :  49 21,  242 

49  :  10 240 

EXODUS 

7:3 304 

8  :  32 305 

9  :  12 304 

12  :  49 51 

13  :  2 no 

19  :  10,  II no 

19  :  14 no 

19  :  23 Ill 

20  :  6 63 

23  :  4,  5 51 

28  :  41     no 

29  :  27 in 

29  :  43»  44 Ill 

30  :  12 262 

40  :  II Ill 

LEVITICUS 

8  :  30 no 

17  :  14 262 

19  :  17.  18 51 

19  :  18 31 

19  :  34 51 

20  :  7 no 

26  :  28 239 

27  :  14-22 112 


NUMBERS 

TEXT  PAGE 

5  :  22 288, 289 

7:1 1" 

11  :  18 in 

20  :  13 112 

31  :  28 263 

31  :  50 262 

DEUTERONOMY 

5  :  12 Ill 

6:4-9 50 

6:5^ 3t 

7  :  7.  8, 13 53 

25  :  15 126 

27  :  11-26 289 

32  :  51 112 

JOSHUA 

3:5 I" 

7  :  13 no 

1  SAMUEL 

16  :  5 Ill 

17  :  45 66 

18  :  10 304 

19  :  20     .       .       .   .  249 

2  SAMUEL 

12  ;  7 233 

22  :  n     256 

I  KINGS 

12  :  14    .   .  236,  237,  238 

1  CHRONICLES 

12  :  38 126 

15  :  12,  14 Ill 

2  CHRONICLES 

20  :  7 53 

29  :  5 Ill 

NEHEMIAH 
3  •■  I Ill 

13  :  22 in 


JOB 

TEXT  PAGE 

^   :  14 249 

2:4 26,  262 

32  :  8 264 

PSALMS 

4:5 153 

17  :  13-15 269 

17  :  15 268 

18  :  10 256 

27  :  6 153 

27  :  10     54 

31  :  5 264 

31  :  19 54 

34  :  22 263 

35  :  9 263 

51  :  5 178,  179 

51 ;  17 153 

63  :  I.  3 54 

94  :  12 237 

103  :  8, 10, 12, 13  .   .    54 
107  :  15 54 

118  :  I 54 

119  :  126-128     ...    63 
145  :  3 304 

PROVERBS 

^'■^ 34 

13  :  24 14,  239 

16  :  2 265 

18  :  10 66 

23  :  20 13 

23  :  31 34 

25  :  21,  22 51 

26  :  4 12 

26  :  5 12 

ECCLESIASTES 

3  :  21 266 

12  ;  7 266 

ISAIAH 

I  :  11-17 153 

26  :  9 264 

28  :  9 180 

309 


310 


Our  Misunderstood  Bible 


TEXT                        pac;e 
40  :  3o»  31 215 

42  :  I 267 

43  :  1-3 55 

45  :  6,  7 304 

49  :  15     ......    55 

55  :  3 263 

63  :  16 55 

64  :  6 21 

66  :  13 55 

JEREMIAH 

3:4 55 

28  :  6 290 

31  :  3 56 

EZEKIEL 

10  :  14 25s 

18  :  31 265 

20  :  41 112 

28  :  15 126 

34  :  31 56 

36  :  23 112 

HOSEA 
2  :  23 56 

JOEL 

2  :  15,  16 no 

MICAH 
6  :  7,  8 63 

ZEPHANIAH 

3  :  17 56 

ZECHARIAH 

2:8 56 

10  :  II 240 

MALACHI 

1:2 56 

2  :  10 56 

2  :  15 176 

3  :  16,  17    .   .       .  .    56 
4:6 176 

MATTHEW 

5:8 119 

5  :  " 69 

5  :  ^  7-20 57 

5  :  18 288 

5  :  38 25 

5  :  43-48 128 

5  =  48 125 

6  :  22 123 


TEXT  PAGE 

6  :  24 123 

7  :  21 58 

8  :  10 288 

9  :  13 95 

10  :  7 229 

10  :  15 288 

10  :  17 69 

10  :  28 264 

10  :  39 69 

11  :  28-30 210 

11  :  29 211 

12  :  18 267 

13:15 82 

13  :  41.  42 58 

16  :  24 130 

16  :  26 263 

18  :  1-4 181 

18  :  3 81,  204 

19  :  21 127 

20  :  22 139 

22  :  40 31 

23  :  19 ^^3 

23  :  23 58 

25  :  31-46 58 

27  :  32 138 

28  :  6 276 

MARK 

3  :  28 288 

8  :  12 288 

4  :  12 82 

8  :  34 130 

8  :  35 140 

9  :  17-25 203 

10  :  14 180 

10  :  IS 204 

10  :  38 139 

12  :  32,  33 52 

12  :  33 63 

14  :  21 25 

15  :  21 138 

15  :  46 275 

16  :  6 276 

16  :  15 230 

LUKE 

4  :  24 288 

5  :  31 95 

9  :  23 130 

7  :  24 249 

9  :  23,  24 140 

9  :  51 249 

10  :  27 52 

10  :  28 52 

10  :  40 219 

ID  :  41,  42 220 


TEXT  PAGE 

12  :  37 288 

12  :  47 59 

14  :  26,  27 139 

16  :  15 37 

18  ;  17 124 

19  :  10 95 

22  :  32 81,  82 

23  :  26 138 

24  :  12 276 

24  :  27 30 

JOHN 

1  :  51 288 

3:3 92 

3:7^ 92 

3  :  16 64 

5:8 213 

5:^-^7 213 

5  :  19 200 

6  :  26 288 

6  :  60 125 

6  :  63 25 

7  :  37 44 

7  :  39 72 

8  :  12 -45 

8  :  56 62 

8  :  58 62 

II  :  5 221 

11  :  44 275 

12  :  40 82 

14  :  13 65,  67 

14  :  14 66 

14  :  15,21,23,  24  .   .    59 
14  :  16,  17 73 

14  :  20 06 

15  :  10,  14 59 

16  :  23,  24 65 

17  :"-»3 67 

17  :  17-19 ^^4 

19  :  17,  18 138 

20  :  6-8 276 

ACTS 

1:8 73 

2:4 74 

2  :  38 74 

2  :  39 '82 

3  :  '9 82 

4:8 74 

4  :  12 68 

5  :  32 74 

6:5 74 

8  :  26-40 232 

8  :  30,  31    ....  24,  29 

9  :  31 74 

10  :  44 75 


Scripture  Index 


311 


TEXT  PAGE 

"  :  24 74 

13  :  9 74 

13  :  52 73 

19:2,  6 75 

28  :  27 82 

ROMANS 

2  ;  5-11 60 

3  •■  31 60 

5  :  20 98»  177 

8  :  26,  27 76 

"  :  33 295 

13  :  8,  10 63 

1  CORINTHIANS 

1  :  21 231 

2  :  II 265 

3  :  16, 17 115 

4  :  10 69 

5:5 265 

6:3 248 

6  :  17 265 

7  :  14 "3 

7  :  34 265 

8  :  13 21 

13  :  2,  3 102 

14  :  16 288 

14  :  33 48 

15  :  21-23 272 

15  :  22 169 

15  ••  35-44 273 

15  :  51-54  272 

15  :  52 276 

2  CORINTHIANS 

I  :  20 288 

5  :  10,  II 60 

7:1     •  265 

9:7 14^ 

12  :  4 296 


GALATIANS 

TEXT                                   PAGE 
4:6 76 

5  :  22,  23 76 

5  :  25 76 

6  :  2,  5     .  .    ....  13 

6:7 97 

EPHESIANS 

4  :  15 "7 

5  :  25-27 116 

PHILIPPIANS 

2:5 106 

2  :  12 103 

2  :  12,  13 106 

4  :  11-13 136 

COLOSSIANS 

2  {  21,  22 21 

3  :  22 34 

1  THESSALONIANS 

5  :  23 115,  264 

5:6-8 10 

2  THESSALONIANS 

1  :  7-10 61 

1  TIMOTHY 

4  :4>  5 "3 

2  TIMOTHY 

2  :  15 18 

3  :  16,  17 20 

HEBREWS 

1  :  14 248 

2  :  II 113 

2:13 183,  185 

4  :  12 17 


TEXT  PAGE 

5  :  II.  12 18 

11  :  27 122 

12  :  5,  6 236 

12  :  7 236 

12  :  8 236 

12  :  14 114 

12  :  19 238 

JAMES 

1:8 123,  225 

2  :  20,  24,  26  ...   .    61 
3:2 127 

1  PETER 

1  :  12 248 

2  PETER 

2:9 61 

2  :  10 265 

3:8 300 

3  :  15,  16 18 

3:18 117 

1  JOHN 

2  :  3.  4 61 

3  :  7,  8 61 

4  :  10,  II 64 

4  :  16 62 

5:3 62 

2  JOHN 

6 62 

REVELATION 

3  :  14 283 

14  :  9,  10 62 

19  :  20 62 

21  297 

21  :  8 62 

21 :  16  298 


